Successful Models

Successful dual language programs must be guided by participants' personal and professional experiences that build cultural-linguistic capital for both majority and minority language students. The theoretical models of dual language instruction affirm these values and beliefs: (a) becoming bilingual and biliterate is the path to the future; (b) dual language programs, when implemented correctly, are far superior to English immersion programs; and (c) failure rates in programs that do not foster full development of L1 and bilingualism and biliteracy are unacceptable.

Language is acquired best when it is the medium of instruction, not solely as the object of instruction. Students who acquire a language while they are learning content- area information are engaged in meaningful discussions and have a real reason to use and acquire the new language. In a bilingual immersion setting, students communicate with their peers and teacher to make meaning, explain, describe, and problem-solve in both their native and second languages. Their language acquisition has real and relevant purposes for the students (Christian, Montone, Lindholm, Carranza, 1997). In well-implemented dual language programs all students acquire a second language while continuing to develop their first. All students receive instruction in their native language, providing the necessary linguistic foundation for the later acquisition of their L2 and development of full proficiency in both languages (Cummins, 2000). In this way, high expectations for both language groups are maintained as they are challenged and supported in reaching full proficiency and command of content-area knowledge in both languages.

For a description of the characteristics of various models of dual language instruction, see Table 1, adapted from Wink (2000).

Kontra, Phillipson, Skutnabb-Kangas, & Varady (1999) suggest an application to program models of Ruiz' s (1984) description of attitudes toward language that carries us forward in our understanding of the interrelation of social, political and pedagogical factors in program design and implementation. These authors point out how making the "language as right" and the "language as resource" orientations dichotomous or contradictory can mitigate against the view of a language minority group's human right to utilize their linguistic resources as a form of "cultural-linguistic capital." A linguistic-human rights orientation implies that everyone can identify positively with his or her native language and expect to have that identification accepted and respected by others.

At the collective level, a linguistic human rights orientation implies the right of a community of speakers of a common language to use the language as a medium of instruction in public schools and to have control over curricula and teaching in their own language. These collective rights are exercised within a minority community to enhance their children's learning and to allow them to exploit their bilingualism as a social and material resource in reaching their full human potential (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1986). Language as acknowledged as a sentimental resource in sustaining familial bonds and exchanges across international boarders among migrant populations. The importance of bilingualism in social and economic terms in regions with open borders and high levels of transnational exchange and trade is more recognized today than with immigrant groups in the past who virtually severed ties with their homelands (Rumbaut, 1995, Torres, 1998). Conflicts over majority and minority groups' access to cultural-linguistic capital are at the core of dueling models of dual language instruction.

Immersion Confusion

There is immersion, and then there is immersion (Wink, 1991). The simultaneous and contradictory meanings assigned to immersion result in misinformation and myths which language researchers and educators are challenging (Flood, Lapp, Tinajero, & Hurley, 1997). Bilingual education is a general term for a complex array of programs, each with different goals and objectives for different student populations (Rubin, 1977; Trueba, 1980). Any discussion of bilingual education programs must be understood within a broader social, political, and educational context.

It is often difficult for well-meaning educators and community members to understand the confusion surrounding immersion. When we think about these various program models and realize that there are individual differences in each program depending on the unique needs of a community, it is fairly easy to understand why we are experiencing immersion confusion. In our experience, an effective maintenance bilingual education classroom looks very much like a bilingual immersion classroom in that they are joined with parallel goals of bilingualism and biliteracy for all students. However, they often differ in the population served based on the demographics of the community. The relative success and measurable outcomes in students' academic achievement of different models of bilingual programs have been the subject of research studies (see for example, Ramírez , Yuen, & Ramey, 1991).

International language education scholars decry how terms used in formulating just and equitable language policy are usurped in the United States to inculcate Euro-centric values and language and to maintain the hegemony of English speakers (Wren, 1997). In their volume on international immersion education, Johnson and Swain (1997) state the following:

Given the core features we have proposed, we would argue that there are some programs labeled immersion that have overextended the use of this term to the point at which a discussion of common issues and problems become difficult, if not impossible. A good example of inappropriate over-extension is the labeling of English-only programs for Spanish-speaking minorities in the United States as "immersion education." Such English-only education leads to replacive or subtractive bilingualism in the academic domain, the wide use of the L2 in public domains leads to the development of interpersonal and social proficiency that immersion students do not have the opportunity to acquire. (p. 12)

In this article we attempt to make clear the differences between what we will call the "popular parlance" and the definitions used by language educators to identify program models. By popular parlance we mean the casual way in which language model labels are expanded and reduced according to the particular purposes of the user of the terminology. The term "immersion" has many simultaneous, and even contradictory, meanings when used in different educational and political contexts. However, as language educators we need to acknowledge common understandings of programmatic models because our lack of attention to clear and accurate discourse has contributed to distortions of our philosophy and misuse of research findings (Edelsky, 1996).

Proposition 227 provides an example of the imprecise use of program descriptors, which leads to ambiguity in school districts' attempts to implement programs in compliance with the law (Zehr, 2000). Proposition 227's Article 2:D provides this definition of the mandated program for limited English proficient students into the education code (California Secretary of State, 1998).

"Sheltered English immersion" or "structured English immersion" means an English language acquisition process for young children in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language.

This definition of SEI is ambiguous. Is structured English immersion a language acquisition process, a program, a technique, a method, a curriculum, a presentation, or a class? The law provides no clear guidance to school district administrators and teachers, implying only that there are curricular modifications and different methods required for teaching English language learners.

A highly controversial aspect of this model of language minority education is the duration of the program, since SEI is considered a remedial program, with the goal being rapid exit into regular curriculum or "mainstream" classes (Rossell, 2000). Studies of the patterns of acquisition of the level of academic language proficiency to perform more cognitively demanding literacy and critical thinking tasks suggest that an average of five to seven years is required to attain parity with native speakers (Collier, 1995; Hakuta, Butler & Witt, 2000; Cummins, 1981). This body of research calls into question the validity of a theoretical model of language education that fails to make provisions for normal rates of learning L2 and academic skills and content simultaneously. Nomenclature meant to describe additive dual language instruction programs is erroneously applied to second language teaching from a language-deficit position, as in the case of structured English immersion mandated by Proposition 227 (see Table 2).

Structured immersion, or as it has more recently been called in California, sheltered English immersion or structured English immersion, is the opposite of the Canadian model. It is designed to serve only language minority students. The current goal is English dominance sufficient for students to participate in mainstream classes within one year. Teachers or paraprofessionals need not speak the language of the students, and the language of instruction is overwhelmingly in English (Krashen, 1998).