Teachers' Perspectives

California's Proposition 227 presents an example of lack of congruence between the expectations set for teachers and their actual classroom behaviors, especially their use of students' native language as a medium of instruction as compared with the stated goals of the program. Since the advent of Proposition 227 in California, teachers now are often in a position of understanding and the ability to articulate their own pedagogical beliefs, but not being allowed to act according to these beliefs in actual classroom practices (Gándara et al., 2000).

The following are examples of the lack of congruence between teachers' professional beliefs and their behaviors from Wink (1998). The data included these comments collected from teachers from different school districts, during the 1999-2000 academic year.

Teacher A: "We invited the families to come to school to share their concerns now that there is no more bilingual education. The families were a mixture of Hispanic, Euro-Americans, and Filipinos. Everyone wanted their children to be bilingual; we tried to think of ways we can do this and work around Prop 227. We all decided we would have classes in Spanish after school."

Teacher B: "It is a must that I follow the curriculum at my school; it is mandatory in reading, language, and math. The curriculum tells me exactly what materials are needed and exactly word for word what to say when."

Teacher C: "Before Prop 227, during our English as a Second Language (ESL) time, we had Spanish as a Second Language (SSL) for the English-only students. Since Prop 227, we aren't allowed to have ESL and SSL anymore."

Teacher D: "I have a fifth grade student who came from Mexico last year. In his language he was above grade level in literacy and every content area. This year he does everything in English and works after school with a tutor. I nominated him for Honor Society, and he was denied. Instead, he was retained because he wasn't at grade level reading in English."

Teacher E: "Prop. 227 has had a profound effect on our small campus. Bilingual education is out, and a new immersion program is in. The teacher is English-only and tries to move them into the mainstream classes fast, but because of class size reduction, this doesn't work either. I have noticed that some of our immersion classes have become like quasi resource classrooms."

Teacher F: "I only wish that the [immersion] teacher knew that talking slower and louder doesn't help a child who cannot understand English."

Teacher G: "One of the best things, considered one of the worst things by charter school critics, about our charter schools is that are mostly exempt from the State Education Code, which also exempts us from Prop 227."

Wink (1998) concluded that these teachers' reactions to the discrepancies between Proposition 227's espoused goals of rapid acquisition of English and competencies to enter "mainstream" classes with their own beliefs about effective educational practices for language minority students represent the negative impact of externally-imposed theoretical models of second-language acquisition on dual language classrooms. Gándara et al. (2000) have documented teachers' high levels of frustration and stress, as teachers attempt to conform to policies that are incongruence with their knowledge and beliefs about effective school practices for their student populations.

Congruence Between Patterns of Language Use and Program Model

Congruence Level 3: Program Guidelines-Classroom Language Use Patterns.

Level 3 is the match between teachers' actual patterns of use of the two languages for different purposes in the classroom and dual language program's stated goals and philosophy.

In other words, we examine program implementation to determine whether or not the use of the languages is congruent with the stated program goals and objectives for developing L1 language and literacy skills and achieving full native-speaker equivalent proficiency in L2. Kerper (1985) concluded that discrepancies between what actually occurs in the classroom in terms of language use and what the instructional model indicates about optimal program outcomes may negatively affect program effectiveness.

An example of this level of congruency can be seen in the dual language program in Taylor School District, which is located in a lower socioeconomic area for both Anglos and Latinos. The children in school reflect the demographics of the neighborhood with a balance between Spanish-dominant and English-dominant families. The goals and philosophy of the program are bilingualism, biliteracy, full academic achievement for all, and positive intergroup relationships. The needs of the two groups of children have many similarities; specifically, all children in the program receive an enriched language arts program in both languages. To a very high degree, the teachers feel fortunate to be working in this site because the families are actively involved at all levels of the school community.

This program stands in sharp contrast to the program in Taylor School District, although the stated goals and philosophy of the two school districts' dual immersion programs are the same. In Taylor School District, there is congruence between the goals and philosophy and the patterns of use of the two languages for different purposes. In contrast, the case study of Dorado School District, located in much higher socioeconomic community, documented the disparities in academic success between English-dominant and Spanish-dominant students in a dual language program (Griego-Jones, 1994). Wink (1998) concluded that merely providing instruction in the primary language of language minority students did not necessarily provide educational equity nor opportunities for language majority students. The data reveal that incongruity between the goals and philosophy of the program, and the actual patterns of use of the two languages as mediums of instruction.

Although the stated goal of the immersion program is to promote fluency and literacy in Spanish, the power and status of dominant language of the society, English, manifested themselves throughout the program. With the majority of students being English-dominant, the program overwhelmingly served their needs, although the goals stated that the program was designed to serve the needs of language minority and language majority students. The teachers recognized that the English-dominant children needed to learn Spanish vocabulary, particularly in kindergarten. Therefore, the kindergarten curriculum focused on the acquisition of oral Spanish and introduction to the alphabet. Emphasis on vocabulary served the needs of the English-dominant students, but did not address the needs of the Spanish-dominant students for conceptual development and higher order thinking skills development. Teachers altered their language and teaching methods to reinforce simple vocabulary because English-dominant students did not understand anything but the most basic vocabulary initially. This left native Spanish-speaking students unchallenged.

When asked who benefits most from the immersion program, one Spanish-dominant student, María, responded:

"Depende quién es. Para su hijo sería un buen programa. El podría aprender español. Es mejor para alguien quien no habla español muy bien. (Depends who it is. For your son, it would be a good program. He could learn Spanish. It's better for somebody who doesn't speak Spanish well.)

The focus of Dorado School District's immersion program in the first three grades was on Spanish-language vocabulary development for English-dominant students. Thus, teachers used very basic and rudimentary Spanish with their classes in order for the majority of the students to understand. Native Spanish speakers were not surrounded with the enriched language and vocabulary development appropriate to their needs.

Wink's (1998) findings tend to affirm the concerns about group interaction and the power and status of the languages of instruction expressed by Valdés (1997). Valdés posits the possibility that language majority and language minority students may not benefit equally from dual language instruction, due to the larger context and status conflicts within the communities where such programs are implemented. In the case of Dorado School District, although curriculum in the immersion program was provided in Spanish, the format of the curriculum assumed children have internalized the norms of language use in academic life in the United States. Consequently, patterns of language use became established in this setting that worked to the advantage of the majority language group while precluding full and equal participation of native-Spanish speakers. This artifact of dual language instruction in Dorado School District may be incongruent with the goals of the program, since the stated goal of the program was educational opportunities for language minority and majority students to achieve high academic levels and equal prestige for Spanish and English.

When dual language programs are well implemented, students have access to optimal conditions for academic development in both languages However, simply labeling a particular program "bilingual" or "dual language" or "two-way immersion" does not guarantee success in meeting linguistic and academic goals. Neither can we expect high levels of academic achievement for students in programs that operate under ill-conceived models based on erroneous assumptions and misinterpretations of pedagogical theories and scholarly research. Complex social, linguistic, and cultural factors constantly call upon us to rethink even those dual language programs that ultimately offer the greatest potential for students of the twenty-first century. We proponents of dual language instruction become vulnerable to attack when we criticize some programs labeled "bilingual" because they are not bilingual enough. We run the risk of having our words be cast as condemnation of dual language programs and used to promote an English-centric perspective.

We have learned that we must advocate for sound and effective language policy that supports the advantages of bilingualism as a valuable resource in our competitive global economy and culturally diverse society. We must also demand sound educational policy that supports implementation of effective schooling practices and programs based on coherent theoretical models. In moving forward, our focus is on educational enrichment through dual language instruction for all students.

• August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). (Eds.). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
• Brice Heath, S. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. Beyond language: Social & cultural factors in schooling language minority students. Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center: Los Angeles.
• Brisk, M. E. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• California Department of Education (1999). Language Census Report. [On-line] Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/demographics/reports/#swlep.
• California Secretary of State (1998). Proposition 227. California Voter Information Guide. Sacramento, CA: Author.
• Christian, D. (1996). Two way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 66-76.
• Christian, D., Montone, C., Lindholm, K., & Carranza, I. (1997). Profiles in two-way immersion education. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
• Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in Language and Education [On-line]. Available: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/dir14.htm
• Cummins, J. (2000). Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in the education of bilingual students. In C.J. Ovando & P. McLaren (Eds.) The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education (pp. 126-147). Boston, MA; Mcgraw-Hill Higher Education.
• Cummins, J. (1995). The European Schools Model in Relation to French Immersion Programs in Canada. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Ed.) Multilingualism for all (pp. 159-168). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
• Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, 132-149.
• Edelsky, C. (1996). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language and education (2nd ed.). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis Inc.
• EdSource. 1998. Election Brief: Proposition 227 "English for the Children." [On-line] Available: http://www.edsource.org/htmfiles/efct_prp227.htm
• Flood, J., Lapp, D., Tinajero, J., & Hurley, S. (1996/1997). Literacy instruction for students acquiring English: Moving beyond the immersion debate. The Reading Teacher, 50 (4), 356-358.
• Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
• Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., García, E., Asato, J., Gutiérrez, K. Stritkus, T. & Curry, J. (2000). The initial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of English learners. Davis, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Center.
• García, E. E. (1994). Linguistically and culturally diverse children: Effective instructional practices and related policy issues. In H.C. Waxman, J. Walker de Félix, J.E. Anderson, & H.P. Baptiste, (Eds.) Students at risk in at-risk schools: Improving environments for learning (pp. 65-86). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
• Griego-Jones, T. (1994). Assessing students' perceptions of biliteracy in two-way bilingual classrooms. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 13, p. 79-93. [On line]. Available: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu.
• Hakuta, K., Butler, G.Y, & Witt, D. (2000, January). How long does it take learners to attain English proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy 2000-1.
• Johnson, R.K., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Jones, E. B. (1998). Mexican American Teachers As Cultural Mediators: Literacy and Literacy Contexts Through Bicultural Strengths. Dissertation. Claremont Graduate School and San Diego State University. San Diego, California.
• Karna, H. T., & Lara, M. (1992). The support factor as empowerment and teachers' perceptions of bilingual programs. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 11, 187-206.
• Kerper, J. (1985). A study of the congruence between bilingual education program guidelines for language use, teacher language use policy, and teacher language use patterns in the classroom. Dissertation. University of Houston.
• Kontra, M., Phillipson, R., Skutnabb-Kangas, T. Varady, T. (Eds.). (1999). Language: A right and a resource. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press.
• Krashen, S. (Summer/Fall, 1998). Is 180 days enough? TESOL Bilingual Basics, 1(2), 1-4.
• Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, R. T. (1972). Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Legarreta-Marcaida, D. (1977). Effective use of the primary language in the classroom. In California State Department of Education. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
• Los Angeles Times/CNN (1998, June 4). ). California elections: Profile of the electorate. The Los Angeles Times, Record Edition, p. 30.
• Miramontes, O.F., Nadeau, A., & Commins, N.L. (1997). Restructuring schools for linguistic diversity. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Mora, J.K. (2000). Policy shifts in language-minority education: A mismatch between politics and pedagogy. The Educational Forum, 64 (3), 204-214.
• Mora, J.K., Jones, E.B., & Palacio, E.J. (1999). The Calexico Success Story: Identifying variables in the literacy achievement of Hispanic students. National Association for Bilingual Education Conference, Denver, CO, January 26-30.
• National Association for Bilingual Education (1995). Teaching literacy to bilingual children: Effective practices for use by monolingual and bilingual teachers. NABE News (August). Washington, DC: Author.
• Phillipson, R. (Ed.). (2000). Rights to language: Equity, power, and education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Porter, R.P. (1999/2000). The benefits of English Immersion. Educational Leadership, 57 (4), 52-56.
• Ramírez, J D., Yuen, J. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children: Executive Summary. Prepared for the United States Department of Education, under Contract No. 300-87-0156. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ramirez/longitudinal.htm
• Rossell, C.H. (2000). Different questions, different answers: A critique of the Hakuta, Butler, and Witt Report, "How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?" The READ Institute. [On-line] Available: http://www.read-institute.org/hakuta.html.
• Rubin, J. (1977). Bilingual education and language planning. In B. Spolsky & R. L. Cooper (Eds.). Frontiers in Bilingual Education (pp. 282-294). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Rueda, R. & García, E. (1996). Teachers' perspectives on literacy assessment and instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. Elementary School Journal, 96 (3), 311-332.
• Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 7, 15-34.
• Rumbaut, R. G. (1995). The new Californians: Comparative research findings on the education progress of immigrant children. In R. G. Rumbaut & W.A. Cornelius, California's immigrant children: Theory, research, and implications for educational policy, (p. 17-70). San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
• Sahagun, L. (1999, July 1). L.A. schools are abusing Prop. 227, report says. Los Angeles Times, Record Edition, p. 3.
• Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1986). Who wants to change what and why - conflicting paradigms in minority education research. In B. Spolsky (Ed.). Language and Education in Multilingual Settings (pp. 153-181). Avon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
• Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or not: The education of minorities. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
• Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.). (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
• Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1998). Two languages are better than one. Educational Leadership, 23-26.
• Torres, C. A. (1998). Democracy, education, and multiculturalism: Dilemmas of citizenship in a global world. Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Trueba, H. T. (1980). Bilingual Education Models: Types and Designs. In H. T. Trueba, & C. Barnett-Mizrahi (Eds.), Bilingual multicultural education and the professional: From theory to practice (pp. 54-73). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Valdés, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391-429.
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Wink, J. (2000). Critical Pedagogy: Notes from the Real World.. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
• Wink, J., & Wink, D. (2000). Dual language models and intergenerational inspirations. In R. Phillipson (Ed.), Rights to language: Equity, power, and education (pp. 259-263). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
• Wink, D. (1998). Bilingual Immersion: Variables for Language Minority Student Success. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento, Sacramento, California.
• Wink, J. (1991). Immersion Confusion. TESOL Matters,1 (6), 10.
• Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
• Wren, H. (1997). Making a difference in language policy agendas. In W. Eggington & H. Wren (Eds.). Language policy: Dominant English, pluralist challenges (pp. 3-28). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Zehr, M.A. (2000, May 3). Prop. 227 makes instruction less consistent, study says. Education Week, 19 (34), 7.
  
  Start of Article
  Article Continued Part II
  Article Continued Part III