Write 3 pages of sociological reflective journal

User Generated

CG6413

Humanities

Description

Write 3 pages of reflective journal based on the directions below:

1: Talk with someone who has moved from one country to another country, and who has

attended school (any level) in which instruction was conducted in a language different

from the one spoken in their home. Elicit a personal story about immigration and

schooling. Ask this person if they would tell you some stories about their school

experience. What significant incidents do they remember about learning the general

expectations of schooling in their new country and learning the language of school?

2: Write a summary of their story. First, give some of the general information about the

person (no need to name the person), including the story of their immigration. Then briefly

relate their narratives and the questions that these stories raise for your understanding of

the education of linguistic minority children. How might this "case" fit into our course

discussions on culture, language, and education? Use all four readings (Crawford,

Garcia, Billings et al. and Palmer) to support your arguments. Finish your paper with

whether the passage of California Proposition 58 would have academically and socially

supported the person you interviewed or not.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Beyond English Development: Bilingual Approaches to Teaching Immigrant Students and English Language Learners ELSA S. BILLINGS San Diego State University MELINDA MARTIN-BELTRÁN University of Maryland ANITA HERNÁNDEZ New Mexico State University Educational policies for English language learners (ELLs) tend to focus on English language acquisition. In this chapter, we argue that educators need to give more attention to the development of bilingualism and biliteracy to draw upon the tremendous intellectual, linguistic, and cultural resources that bilingual children bring to our schools. Bilingual education programs have the potential to develop language resources of multilingual immigrant students and ELLs that are otherwise neglected in monolingual English programs. In their call for a new educational policy agenda to meet the needs of immigrant students, C. Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco (2009) argued that all students of the 21st century should be able to function in multiple languages. They recommended that the new administration “urge more schools to implement dual-language programs that, when well designed and managed, produce excellent results to prepare competent bilingual speakers, immigrant and native alike” (C. National Society for the Study of Education, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp. 384–413 Copyright © by National Society for the Study of Education, Columbia University Beyond English Development 385 Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009, p. 10). In this statement, we note the discourse around bilingual education shifting from its historical focus on compensatory education for ELLs to enrichment education for all students, a shift we explore in this chapter. In this chapter, we identify and explain bilingual approaches to teaching immigrant students and particularly ELLs in elementary schools. We define different program models under the umbrella term of bilingual education by first examining the sociopolitical climate in which bilingual programs are situated. Next, we explain the theoretical underpinnings and rationale for bilingual models followed by bilingual teaching practices more closely. In the fourth section, we present profiles of bilingual programs across the United States. Finally, we suggest implications for teacher education. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF EDUCATING IMMIGRANT AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS Historically, the education of ELLs has been largely directed by court cases, (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 1954; Lau v. Nichols, 1974; Castañeda Standards, 1981) and federal legislation (Civil Rights Act, 1964; Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965; Bilingual Education Act, 1968). The Bilingual Education Act passed in 1968 paved the way for bilingual education as an accommodation for ELLs (Baker, 2006). While language of instruction was an important item debated within these court cases and legislation, it emerged within the larger context of equitable access to education. However, recent years have borne witness to a spate of education legislation that has emphasized English acquisition through English instruction (Crawford, 2004). Anti-immigration sentiments further set a sociopolitical tone that has impacted the education of all ELLs, whether foreign- or U.S.-born, as seen in the various Official English legislation enacted in more than half of our nation’s states. Arguably one of the most influential and controversial legislation was California’s Proposition 227, English for the Children, which passed on June 2, 1998. Bolstered by the passing of Proposition 227, a series of similar antibilingual education initiatives swept the United States, passing in Arizona in 2000 and in Massachusetts in 2002, although failing to pass in Colorado in 2002. Simultaneously, in 2002, the Bush administration signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, transforming the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII) into the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. Under Title III, funding previously specified for bilingual education was repealed and folded into general funding to states for language learners and 386 National Society for the Study of Education immigrant populations. With Title III, the pedagogical emphasis shifted from supporting programs that used some form of native language instruction (albeit as a means to reach English proficiency) to solely focus on “English acquisition and academic achievement in English—not the cultivation of bilingualism” (Ovando, Combs, & Collier, 2006, p. 68). While these changes have been couched within the language of fair, equal, and high-quality education, an emphasis on the teaching of English has taken precedence, dictating accountability measures and the tightly linked federal funds allocated to educating ELLs (Crawford, 2002). As noted by Schirling, Contreras, and Ayala (2000) in a study of the impact of Proposition 227, this narrow focus on language actually diminishes critical factors in the education of ELLs, including access to grade-level content, quality instructional materials, and highly prepared teachers. OVERVIEW OF BILINGUAL PROGRAM MODELS IN THE UNITED STATES As demonstrated by public response to the English for the Children propositions, public perception often holds that the majority of ELLs can be found in bilingual education programs; however, in reality, the majority of these children receive their instruction in English-only programs (Crawford, 2003). Although current nationwide figures are not available, reports on the percentages of ELLs enrolled in bilingual programs in California prior to Proposition 227 were close to 30%. These numbers dropped to less than 9% after the passage of Proposition 227, and it is estimated that the figures are even lower in other states1 (Crawford, 2003). The coalescing of these multiple sociopolitical factors has led to the diminishment of many bilingual education programs over the past 20 years. Interestingly, however, two-way immersion (TWI) programs2 have been on the rise, growing from fewer than 10 programs in 1981 to 346 programs across 27 states in 2009 (Howard & Sugarman, 2001; Center for Applied Linguistics [CAL], 2009). The majority of TWI programs are found in California at 107 schools, followed by Texas with 53 schools and New York with 29 schools (CAL, 2009). The most common bilingual programs include (1) transitional or earlyexit bilingual programs, (2) developmental, late-exit, or maintenance bilingual programs, and (3) heritage or indigenous language programs, and (4) two-way immersion or dual language programs.3 A brief overview of each program’s features follows with a more detailed look at TWI program models (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, n.d.). Beyond English Development 387 TRANSITIONAL OR EARLY-EXIT BILINGUAL PROGRAMS • The goal is to develop English proficiency skills as soon as possible, while using a LOTE (language other than English, students’ dominant home language) for literacy and content instruction to avoid delaying learning of academic core content. • Instruction begins in the LOTE, but rapidly moves to English. • Students typically are transitioned into mainstream classrooms with their English-speaking peers as soon as possible. DEVELOPMENTAL, LATE-EXIT, OR MAINTENANCE BILINGUAL PROGRAMS • The goal is to develop literacy skills and proficiency in the LOTE and strong parallel skills and proficiency in English. • Content and literacy is taught in both languages. • Instruction at lower grades is in the LOTE, gradually transitioning to English; students typically transition into mainstream classrooms with their English-speaking peers in upper elementary. • The variations among programs focus on different degrees of literacy in the LOTE, but students generally do continue to receive some degree of support in the LOTE after the transition to L2 classrooms. HERITAGE OR INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE PROGRAMS • The goal is literacy in two languages. • Content is taught in both languages by teachers fluent in both languages. • Typically targets heritage language students seeking to further strengthen their LOTE literacy skills. • Known by the name Indigenous Language Program particularly in American Indian educational communities, the program supports endangered languages and serves students with weak receptive and productive skills in the heritage language. DUAL LANGUAGE BILINGUAL AND TWO-WAY IMMERSION PROGRAMS • The goal is to develop strong literacy skills and language proficiency in English and the LOTE. • Includes language minority students (who use a common LOTE at home) and language majority students (who use English at home). 388 National Society for the Study of Education Ideally, dual language programs enroll a balance of native speakers of each language and integrate students throughout the school day. • Academic content and literacy taught in the LOTE and English (a minimum of 50% of instructional time is in the LOTE; instruction varies from 90/10 models to 50/50 models, which are often implemented in states where achievement tests in English begin in early grades and schools are under pressure to demonstrate outcomes in English before a 90/10 model may allow). These models have local variations, which are described in the case studies section below. • Students typically stay in the program throughout elementary school with some programs extending into middle and high schools. As Hornberger (1994) argued, bilingual education models describe more than program design at the school level—they also represent language ideologies situated in sociopolitical contexts. As we consider the best educational practices for our immigrant students and ELLs, we must also critically examine the larger societal goals and ideologies that undergird program models. In Table 1 below, we refer to Ruiz’s (1988) three ideological orientations of language planning that have been used to describe bilingual education models (see Hornberger, 1994). For example, the “language as problem” perspective views LOTEs as “a social probTable 1. Socially Situating Bilingual Education Program Model Goals Bilingual Models Heritage or Indigenous Language Two-way Immersion/ Dual-language Move to Maintain LOTE & monolingualism acquire English Maintain or develop literacy in LOTE and maintain or acquire English Develop bilingualism and biliteracy in English and LOTE Cultural context Assimilation to mainstream (Kindler, 1995) Promote cultural heritage Cultural pluralism, social autonomy (Kindler, 1995) View of LOTEs Language as a Language as a right problem/deficit (Nieto, 2001; Ruiz, (Ruiz, 1988) 1988) Language as a right (Matthews & Matthews, 2004; Nieto, 2001) Language as a resource (Herpe & Mantero, 2007; Ruiz, 1988) Minority language (LOTE) speakers Heritage language learners of LOTE Minority & Majority language speakers (Bahamonde & Friend, 1999) Goals for language competency Students Transitional Maintenance/ Developmental Promote cultural heritage & civil rights affirmation (Skilton-Sylvester, 2003) Minority language (LOTE) speakers Beyond English Development 389 lem to be identified operationally and resolved through treatments like transitional bilingual education” (Ruiz, 1988, p. 17). The “language as right” orientation views the use of minority languages as a basic human and civil right for their speakers, and Ruiz presented an alternative “language as resource” orientation that views minority languages as resources for society as a whole to be potentially cultivated and developed in public schools (Hornberger, 1994). Drawing upon earlier work that compares bilingual models (Hornberger, 1994; Ruíz, 1988), Table 1 delineates different models of bilingual education to show how each reflects ideologies and discourse about the value of bilingualism. DUAL LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAM MODELS Dual language education has been lauded as a bilingual program that promises “to expand our nation’s language resources…[and offers] hope of improving relationships between majority and minority groups by enhancing cross-cultural understanding and appreciation” (Christian, 1996, p. 74). The goals of dual language bilingual education state that all students will (1) become bilingual and biliterate, (2) achieve academic grade-level standards, and (3) demonstrate positive cross-cultural attitudes and multicultural understanding. This bilingual education model provides an additive experience for monolingual and bilingual students so that, by the fifth or sixth grade, they have achieved high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy (Bikle, Billings, & Hakuta 2003). Dual language contexts aim to separate languages by space, time, or instructor to encourage consistency in language use from both students and teachers. Students often have two instructors, each assigned to teach a specific language. In programs with one instructor, languages are often differentiated by time or alternating days (Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Palmer, 2006). This type of separation is meant to develop balanced bilingualism through monolingual instructional contexts (O. García, 2009; LindholmLeary, 2001); however, there is debate over whether this allows for bilingualism or parallel monolingualism4 (see Fitts, 2006; Hayes, 2005; Lee, Bonnet-Hill, & Gillespie, 2008). Programs vary by the language in which content areas are taught. In dual language programs, English-dominant students, LOTE-dominant students, and bilingual students are integrated for most classroom instruction. Teachers are encouraged to use heterogeneous groupings, which position students as experts and learners in alternate languages as they work in different target languages. Dual language program models differ widely in how they approach biliteracy development. In some programs, in grades K–2, both the LOTE-dominant students and the English-dominant students first learn 390 National Society for the Study of Education to read and write in the LOTE. LOTE-dominant students expand their first language (e.g., Spanish) by further developing their speaking, listening, reading, and writing in that language while simultaneously learning to speak their second language (English). In other programs, initial literacy is differentiated for different language groups, and students initially learn to read and write in their native languages. In the 50/50 model, literacy instruction usually begins equally in both languages (Howard & Sugarman, 2007). Although all students may not acquire native-like fluency in both languages, most students do achieve grade-level literacy skills (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). Research has found that English learners’ reading proficiency in English exceeds that of their peers who receive English as a second language (ESL) instruction (Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Ramírez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002). THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION The rationale for bilingual education is grounded in theories of second language acquisition that include explanations of language learning for minority- and majority-language students. One of the most comprehensive theoretical models for second language acquisition (particularly from a cognitive perspective, which has played an important role informing bilingual program design) is the Input-Interaction-Output (IIO) model, which has been developed across several studies (Gass, 1997; Long, 1996; Mackey, 2007). The literature falling under this theoretical model explains how language learning is facilitated when students have access to comprehensible input, interaction with proficient language users, and opportunities to produce output in target languages (Gass, 1997; Hatch, 1992; Krashen, 1985; Long, 1996; Long & Porter, 1985; Mackey, 2007; Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000; Pica, 1994; Swain, 1985; Fillmore, 1991). This theoretical base is drawn upon to describe the goals and essential elements of dual language education, which include the importance of “input that is comprehensible,” “opportunities for output,” and “positive interactions among students” (Christian, 1996, p. 68). Cummins (1979) made an important contribution to second language acquisition theory when he proposed his theory of “common underlying proficiency” to explain a bilingual individual’s common framework of understanding and the shared cognitive academic skills underlying both languages. According to Cummins, a bilingual student’s first and second languages both promote the development of a common underlying proficiency that supports academic literacy. Cummins called attention to the transfer of cognitive, academic, and linguistic competencies from the Beyond English Development 391 native language to another language. This notion of transfer has been supported in subsequent research (Lanauze & Snow, 1989; Royar & Carlo, 1991). Other researchers, such as Hernández (2001) and Pérez (2004), have shown that the transfer of skills can work both ways, namely, that mastering the second language can improve the students’ skills in their primary language. Several researchers have demonstrated that successful ELL readers and writers use similar strategies for reading and writing in both languages, whereas less successful ELL readers and writers do not transfer skills across languages as readily (Genesee et al., 2006; Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1995). Indeed, empirical research has shown that instruction in students’ home languages can support learning a second language (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994; Collier, 1992; Cummins, 1984; Genesee et al., 2006; Krashen, 1985, 1996; Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Fillmore & Valadez, 1986; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005). In their synthesis of studies on language of instruction, Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, and Christian (2006) cited evidence in support of maintaining and developing ELLs’ home language. They also concluded that “contrary to time-on-task hypothesis, ELLs can accommodate instruction in two languages without costs to their English-language development” (p. 141). García and Beltrán (2005) argued that “native language or primary language use” is the “central pillar that supports literacy development in all sound instructional blueprints for English learners” (p. 201). Bilingual education that uses home languages for instruction has been shown to help ELLs develop higher levels of English proficiency (August & Shanahan, 2006; Genesee et al., 2006) and to promote better outcomes in terms of academic achievement, graduation rates, and attitudes toward school (August & Hakuta, 1997; Genesee et al., 2006; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2001; Ramírez et al., 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002). Although there is still a gap between ELLs and proficient English students in many bilingual schools, dual language programs seem to offer the most promise in closing that gap (Howard, Sugarman, & Christian, 2003; Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002). While Cummins’s work has supported the importance of bilingual education for language-minority student success, some scholars (MacSwan, 2000; MacSwan & Rolstad, 2003) warned that Cummins’s work might contribute to a deficit view of language learners. MacSwan (2000) argued that, rather than place the locus of academic failure on individual student language proficiency, we need to consider alternative explanations that also take into account contextual factors that lead to academic literacy and school success. Most researchers agree that promoting academic success for immigrant 392 National Society for the Study of Education students and English learners goes beyond language or languages of instruction. Cummins’s later work (1984, 1996, 2000) along with the work of other scholars have shown that socioeconomic status (SES), sociolinguistic status, previous schooling, and the literacy skills second language learners have in their first language are also strong determiners of academic success (Krashen, 1996; MacSwan & Rolstad, 2003; Rolstad, 1997; Thomas & Collier, 1997). We agree that scholars in the field must carefully “consider the ways in which the institutional effects of our labels may contribute more to the malady than to the proposed remedy of the learners” (MacSwan, 2000, p. 38). Much of the foundational research about bilingual education has been undergirded by second language acquisition (SLA) research from a cognitive paradigm. Yet, in recent years, the field of language education has taken a social turn (see Block, 2003), as scholars have argued the need to socially situate SLA (see Firth & Wagner, 1997, 2007). Along with this shift of research toward language learning as a social process, a push to move further away from language-as-deficit models seems to be present. Instead of using the acquisition metaphor that frames linguistic knowledge as a commodity and individual minds as containers for that commodity (which undergirded theories of semilingualism), sociocultural theorists have suggested that second language research should expand its frame by using the participation metaphor (Sfard, 1998; Swain, 2000). Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001) set forth a Second Language Activity framework, which views learners as historically and socially situated individuals with human agency who choose, refuse, and construct language-learning opportunities. For researchers analyzing bilingual education models, relevant variables such as class location, social power, cultural values, and congruent learning experiences have become increasingly important (Bahamonde, & Friend, 1999; Christian, 1996; Rolstad, 1997). As we describe selected case studies of bilingual programs in this chapter, it becomes evident how these extralinguistic factors have an important impact on the development of bilingualism and biliteracy at school. Programs such as dual language have attempted to recognize sociocultural factors in their program design and goals. Students’ diverse experiences offer enriched opportunities for bilingual learning at school and also reveal the sociocultural complexities of language learning. Although studies have found that dual language programs are constantly struggling with issues of equity and power, these school sites may offer a productive space where dialogue about these issues is moving the field forward (Palmer, 2009; Martin-Beltrán, 2006). Despite the challenges schools face in terms of unequal power relations that inevitably make their way into the classroom, dual language schools continue to provide a unique space where Beyond English Development 393 two languages are valued as academic resources (Martin-Beltrán, 2009). While much research has confirmed the success of dual-immersion programs with measures of high academic achievement (Alanis, 2000; Christian, Howard, & Loeb, 2000; Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2003; de Jong, 2002; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary, 2004; Thomas & Collier, 2002), more research is needed to examine language learning, biliteracy development, and teaching practices (for a review of the research, see Howard,Sugarman,& Christian, 2003). Bringing more than one language to public space in schools has been shown to have multiple benefits, both cognitive and social (Martin-Beltrán, 2009); however, several studies have documented the challenges dual immersion programs face in fostering balanced bilingualism (Fitts, 2006; Hayes, 2005; Lee et al., 2008; Palmer, 2009). Despite these challenges, studies have also shown that ELLs in dual language settings may have increased access to English embedded in LOTEs and multilingual practices (which are representative of the multilingual communities outside of the classroom) in ways that are not available in monolingual English settings (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez, & Chiu, 1999; Martin-Beltrán, 2010). PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES IN BILINGUAL PROGRAMS Because teachers, administrators, and parents see biliteracy as crucial to the success of the dual language program, much attention is given to how well children are reading and writing in their two languages (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Perez, 2004). Although the whole language approach to literacy instruction was the norm in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a shift toward more balanced and comprehensive methodologies for reading and writing instruction has taken place (Pressley, 1998; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). This was also the case with dual language programs. Those programs that began during this time period implemented whole language instruction in the LOTE and in the English language arts (Edelsky, 1986; Howard & Sugarman, 2007; Lindholm-Leary, 2001), and they, too, have since moved toward comprehensive balanced models of biliteracy (Howard & Sugarman, 2007; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Dual language schools have adopted balanced and comprehensive approaches to meet the wide range of needs (Howard & Sugarman, 2007; Pérez, 2004). A comprehensive approach to literacy includes process, direct teaching, and interactive approaches. The process approach focuses on engaging students in using holistically language-rich environments, which includes authentic literature activities, and free reading and writing, rather than activities soley drawn from the reading basal texts. The 394 National Society for the Study of Education direct teaching approach focuses on the explicit teaching of specific skills and subskills, including phonics and phonemic awareness skills, needed for reading and writing. The interactive approach focuses on engaging learners in reading and writing with others—that is, in pairs or small groups—to learn both specific cognitive skills and the cultural aspects of literacy, such as how to talk about something one has read. The interactive approach engages small groups of participants in collaborative projects, which allow for many opportunities to learn and to apply knowledge. Thus, dual language teachers engage students in authentic literature, communicative activities, and theme-based units of instruction to support individuals’ academic development through mediated social interactions with adults, including direct teaching as needed to help the children become biliterate (Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Howard & Sugarman, 2007; Pérez, 2004). Integrated instruction also requires differentiated instruction for students with different levels of language proficiency. In the words of one dual language teacher: I’m reading a big book to the group and one child is still at the very early receptive stage…that child can come up and find a picture in the book and then repeat the word…the next child can respond orally, and the third child can make a prediction. (Howard & Sugarman, 2007, pp. 27–28) Thus, the teacher maintains the grade-level curriculum but makes adjustments in instruction so that all students can participate (Howard & Sugarman, 2007, pp. 27–28). In a study of two dual language immersion programs in the San Antonio area of Texas, Pérez (2004) described several exemplary instructional practices. First, the teachers expected that, by second grade, all students would be reading and writing informational texts in science and social science in Spanish. This was deemed a key literacy benchmark so that students would be ready to build their English literacy skills in third grade. By fourth grade, the teachers focused on helping the children utilize their new English reading and writing skills and employ those skills to master content areas. Furthermore, the third-grade teachers expected the students to begin reading English texts that were approximately at the same linguistic level as those they were already reading in Spanish. This important transition to English texts occurred in guided smallgroup reading times, during which the teachers could monitor the children carefully, an indicator that the curriculum and the instruction were designed to lead to successful biliteracy. Beyond English Development 395 In addition to biliteracy development, teachers need to incorporate teaching strategies to support students as they continue to expand their oral language development in each of the content areas. In her study of 14 dual language classrooms, Pérez (2004) described strategies that dual language teachers use to promote oral language, which include increasing wait time for children to formulate responses in their second language, encouraging students to respond in any language, encouraging students to think in the second language, allowing students to ask a peer for assistance, allowing students to pass, and using written prompts or sentence stems to assist with academic language responses. Thus, language plays a central role in all of the curricular areas. LEARNING THROUGH INTERACTION Peer interaction studies have suggested that creating rich opportunities for using language in social settings produces positive oral language outcomes, conceptual learning, problem-solving, and higher-order thinking skills (Cohen, 1994; Kagan, 2000; Long & Porter, 1985; Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995; Slavin & Karweit, 1985). As part of their bilingual methodology, dual language programs incorporate group work because of its effectiveness in enhancing talk and learning through interactions (Cohen, 1994; Kagan, 2000; Slavin, 1990). However, these interactions involve more than just bringing native English speakers together with partner language speakers (Cohen, 1994, 1997; Freeman, 1998; Genesee et al., 2006; Slavin, 1996). The interactions must be carefully crafted to balance equitable participation, as well as opportunities for language-rich discourse within a challenging academic content. As Lindholm-Leary (2001) noted, “promoting highly proficient oral language skills necessitates providing both structured tasks and unstructured opportunities involving oral production skills in which students can engage” (p. 67). Interactions in cooperative learning groups are influenced by the nature of the tasks assigned to the students by the teacher, by the students’ interpretations of those tasks, and by the nature of the students’ talk as they negotiate the requirements of the tasks (Cohen, 1994; Palmer, 2006). As Cohen (1994) and Slavin (1996) have shown, peer interaction in group work requires that tasks be structured for interdependence, which means that all the group members have opportunities to contribute in a relatively equal manner and that teacher-assigned tasks incorporate a wide range of intellectual abilities. Naturally, teachers must establish norms for students’ interactions in groups to curtail inequities that can occur, such as dialogues being taken over by the most verbally 396 National Society for the Study of Education dominant students in the group (Cohen, 1994). Palmer (2006), who studied a dual language second-grade classroom in Northern California, detailed the behavior of the overly zealous Englishdominant students during the reading instruction in the partner language in a heterogeneous group. These children were determined to answer every question the teacher asked, jumped up to interrupt her, and, in general, left less time for other students to participate in instructional discussions. To ensure the equal participation of all students, the teacher directly asked them not to interrupt each other, used a round robin structure so that everyone had a turn, and corrected linguistic errors. Additionally, the teacher listened to each student and encouraged each of the partner language students to extend their thinking about the story. In one particular group reading lesson, in the course of the reading discussion, the over-zealous student was encouraged to listen to others, and in a turn of events, rather than interrupting, he introduced his idea by acknowledging the point made by the previous student, an ELL. In this instance, the teacher’s persistence in encouraging equitable participation from both the dominant student and the quieter partner language students contributed to a productive discussion. SHELTERED INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN DUAL LANGUAGE PROGRAMS: TWIOP Another important feature of bilingual methodology in dual language programs is the use of sheltered instruction that scaffolds and supports students’ learning content in their second language. A number of resources exist for administrators and teachers to guide instruction for students learning content in a second language. One of these is the TwoWay Immersion Observation Protocol (TWIOP), which was modified from Echevarria, Vogt, and Short’s (2000) well-known Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP). Both the TWIOP and the SIOP are frameworks for sheltering the linguistic and content instruction of second language learners—grounded in the Input-Interaction-Output theoretical model for second language acquisition (described above). However, whereas SIOP guides the instruction for students only in the second language, TWIOP guides teachers’ instruction in both the first and second languages. TWIOP provides a set of recommended guidelines for classroom instruction that build on all eight SIOP components: preparation of lessons, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, and review/assessment. The three modifications specific to TWIOP are curricular planning for two Beyond English Development 397 languages, communication tools for group work for both groups of students working in their second languages, and cross-cultural understanding. Insofar as curricular planning is concerned, the TWIOP authors, Howard, Sugarman, and Coburn (2006), illustrated several recommended classroom practices for dual language programs. One such recommendation is to coordinate the linguistic and content objectives by introducing them in one language and then extending them in the partner language, or vice versa. For example, the teacher can introduce nouns in English and then present the idea that nouns have gender in Spanish. Alternatively, the teacher could develop vocabulary by using cognates, such as la historia and the history. In terms of communication tools, TWIOP recommends that students learn different types of strategies to communicate with peers in the second language, both linguistically and in terms of content. Working in small groups, students are encouraged to use tools such as visuals and gestures to enhance their communications, while maintaining wait time, since everyone is operating in a second language. As for cross-cultural understanding, TWIOP recommends that, for every teaching unit, at least one lesson should be devoted to cross-cultural issues. For example, lessons can focus on a specific community’s cultural heritage or could allow opportunities for crosscultural comparisons when students share stories from their diverse communities of practice. CHALLENGES IN BILITERACY INSTRUCTION One challenge that biliteracy teachers and school curriculum directors often face is finding appropriate teaching texts and materials for literacy instruction in LOTEs. Some basal reading texts attempt to map the literacy norms and practices of the dominant language onto minority languages. For example, Spanish basal texts that use individual phonemes (based on English basal texts) create a disjuncture for bilingual teachers who have traditionally used the syllabic approach to Spanish literacy instruction. In general, the curricula of bilingual education programs are driven by standards established by the individual states, which have been developed for English-speaking students in mainstream schools. However, a few agencies, such as the San Diego County Office of Education and the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment Consortium (WIDA), whose members include 20 states, have published Spanish language arts standards to provide teachers with authentic language competencies for students studying in Spanish. These standards were designed to direct Spanish language arts instruction rather than having it driven by stan- 398 National Society for the Study of Education dards written for reading and language arts in English. Another challenge that teachers and school curriculum directors often face is the lack of available LOTE books (Spanish) in comparison to the sheer number of English language books available. Fránquiz and Reyes (1998), in their study of library resources found that children could neither find nor check out books in Spanish that were comparable to those in English. CLASSROOM LANGUAGE PRACTICES REFLECTING BILINGUAL COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE Although language educators, for the most part, argue that languages should be kept separate during instructional time, researchers have suggested important exceptions to this rule (Galindo, 1993; O. García, 2009; Jiménez, 2000; Pérez, 2004). Some researchers have argued that ELLs need literacy development experiences that are connected to their bilingual abilities and their bicultural practices (Galindo, 1993; O. García, 2009; Jiménez, 2000). Students have been found to cross over language borders and counter monolingual norms using hybrid language practices, code-switching, and borrowing across languages throughout their everyday lives (Gutiérrez et al., 1999). Pérez (2004) suggested that, by fifth or sixth grade, teachers could incorporate a unit on bilingual communication that includes hybrid practices to show how people communicate as they become bilingual. Thus, assignments can be in both languages, followed by a critical analysis and discussion of how the two versions of the assignment do and do not differ and how the language use is similar and different (Pérez, 2004). Some upper-grade teachers in dual language programs compare and contrast the two languages, which develop students’ metalinguistic skills (Cummins, 2007; O. García, 2009; Martin-Beltrán, 2010). Teachers play an important role in their classrooms encouraging talk about language and positioning bilingual practices as resources (Martin-Beltrán, 2009). Nagy, García, Durgunoglu, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993) found that, when students were asked to circle cognates, the children missed many of them simply because these were never taught to them. This finding suggests that teachers need to give more direct attention to the connections across languages in their instruction, which has the potential to develop linguistic and conceptual understanding in both languages. In the next section, we describe case study examples of bilingual programs, focusing on dual language programs, which will likely be the most politically sustainable model in the future. In addition to providing a snapshot of bilingual models at work at the school level, these case stud- Beyond English Development 399 ies illustrate ways in which bilingual programs seek to integrate students’ bilingual communities of practice in their goals and curriculum. CASES OF BILINGUAL PROGRAMS SERVING IMMIGRANT AND ENGLISH LEARNER STUDENTS To survive in this era of accountability where success is often narrowly measured through English language acquisition, bilingual programs are in a state of evolution. In this version of evolution, bilingual programs find themselves engaged in the processes of reconfiguring, renaming, repackaging, and, in some cases, reinventing themselves to survive amidst the sociopolitical pressures from federal and state governments, districts, and the general public. Amidst these pressures are bilingual programs experiencing tremendous success in providing an equitable education to their ELLs, while developing bilingual and biliterate students and also meeting state English assessment benchmarks. In this section, we describe four such successful programs as described in research by Howard and Sugarman (2007). We then focus our discussion on a case study of one Southern California dual language program which we studied firsthand, to exemplify the evolutionary process so many bilingual programs are currently undergoing. As a result of their synthesis of research about dual language—specifically, TWI—programs across the United States, Howard and Sugarman (2007) profiled four TWI programs whose students demonstrated high levels of bilingualism, biliteracy, and academic achievement. In spite of increased external pressures and high-stakes standardized achievement testing in English, Howard and Sugarman (2007) concluded that these schools were effective because they had developed “cultures of intellectualism, equity, and leadership” (p. 10). In this section, we provide an overview of these programs that represent a variety of approaches to TWI models, drawing from Howard and Sugarman’s (2007) research and referring directly to the ways these schools describe themselves on their websites (see Howard & Sugarman, 2007 for more details). We describe how each school is continually adapting its model as they all remain strong advocates for bilingual education. ALICIA CHACÓN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL Alicia Chacón International School, located in El Paso, Texas is a unique TWI school because it goes beyond bilingualism to promote multilingualism. In addition to instruction in Spanish and English, all students (many of whom enter school highly bilingual) choose to learn a third 400 National Society for the Study of Education language—Mandarin Chinese, German, Japanese, or Russian. In kindergarten to second grade, 80% of instruction is in Spanish, 10% is in English and 10% in a third language. In third and fourth grade, 60% is in Spanish, 30% in English, and 10% in a third language. Initial literacy instruction is in Spanish, and language arts lessons are integrated into the subject areas. The school’s ability to maintain a strong Spanish literacy program in the early grades may be related to their unique testing context. Texas is one of the few states in the nation to offer standardized Table 2. Alicia Chacón International School Instruction Program Language of Instruction Spanish English Third language Kinder-2nd % of day 80% 10% 10% Math Social Studies Students in Kinder-4th Grade receive 30 minutes daily of 3rd language 60% 30% 10% Math Social Studies All students also participate in a cultural activity & physical education twice/week related to the 3rd language Reading/ Language Arts Reading/ Language Arts Reading/ Language Arts Science 3rd-4th Grade % of day Science 5th-6th Grade % of day 45% 45% 10% Math Social Studies 5th-8th graders receive 45 minutes of 3rd language classes on alternating days Reading/ Language Arts Reading/ Language Arts Science 7th-8th Grade % of day 30% 60% AP Spanish Social Studies Reading/ Language Arts Math 10% Beyond English Development 401 achievement tests in Spanish, which are recognized by No Child Left Behind. As they describe on their school website, “Since the primary language of instruction in the lower grades is Spanish, all students in 3rd and 4th grade take the TAKS test in Spanish, while all students in 5th-8th grade take the exam in English” (“Frequently Asked Questions,” n.d.). The majority of the students are Latino, but the study body in this magnet school is balanced in terms of language dominance with relatively equal numbers of Spanish dominant students, English dominant students and balanced bilingual students. Table 2 describes the breakdown of language of instruction described on their school website (“Frequently Asked Questions,” n.d.). BARBIERI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Located in Framingham, Massachusetts, Barbieri Elementary School is an interesting case because, in 2007, this school changed their TWI model to increase Spanish instruction in the early grades, despite the passage of an antibilingual education initiative in 2002. Before 2007, the school was implementing differentiated literacy instruction, separating students by native language during language arts. They reconsidered this model in response to their school evaluation and participation in research projects that recommended further integration of students to meet TWI goals. In their new model, all students are integrated for both literacy and content instruction, which begins with 80% in Spanish and 20% in English. The ratio increases to 50/50 by the fifth grade. Parent involvement and bilingual advocacy is an important part of this school community, which is evident in their special parent forum “Padres Aprenden También/Parents Learn Too,” designed to help parents learn more about how a child acquires a second language and how children learn in the early years of bilingual school. FRANCIS SCOTT KEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Francis Scott Key Elementary School, located in Arlington, Virginia, was one of the pioneers in two-way immersion, beginning their program in 1986. They clearly articulate bilingualism and biliteracy as part of their school mission and in their school beliefs, which state that all teachers must “believe that bilingualism is a viable and integral part of each student’s educational experience” (“Beliefs,” n.d.). They follow a 50/50 model with instructional time divided equally between English and Spanish and all students developing initial literacy skills in two languages. Although they aim to integrate students throughout the day, they differ- 402 National Society for the Study of Education entiate instruction during English language arts when students are separated by ability levels to work with the classroom teacher or resource teachers. In recent years, there have been demographic changes due to rising housing prices that have led to fewer Spanish dominant students in the school. As Howard and Sugarman (2007) explained, “although the ratio of Hispanic to non-Hispanic students at Key is still about 50/50, many of the Hispanic students are English dominant or balanced bilinguals” (p. 151). Thus, the school has begun to “move the model closer to foreign language immersion than TWI,” which also runs the risk of neglecting the needs of Spanish dominant students/ELLs (Howard & Sugarman, p. 152). This program has increased Spanish instruction, including Spanish vocabulary intervention, in response to a district evaluation that found lower Spanish language arts achievement (Howard & Sugarman, 2007). Students at Key have done exceptionally well on state achievement tests administered in English (see Howard & Sugarman, 2007). INTER-AMERICAN MAGNET SCHOOL Founded in 1974 and located in Chicago, Illinois, Inter-American Magnet School (IAMS) describes themselves as having an “award-winning dual language immersion program” and “one of the oldest and most comprehensive dual language (also known as two-way immersion) schools in the Midwestern United States” (http://www.iamschicago. com/). In their school mission, they explicitly refer to students achieving high proficiency and developing literacy skills in Spanish and English. They also include a designated place on their school website that explains the benefits of bilingualism for students. The school follows an 80/20 model with all content taught in Spanish in K-4, transitioning to a 50/50 instructional ratio by fifth grade with science taught in English in grades 5-8. They separate students by native language for initial literacy instruction and targeted second language instruction. English instruction is provided during the language arts period for dominant English students and during ESL for dominant Spanish students. Despite what may seem like a low percentage of instruction in English, IAMS students have outperformed their peers on state achievement tests in English. For example, in third grade 87% of students met or exceeded district and state performance in reading compared with 45% of students in English only programs in the same district (Howard & Sugarman, 2007). Beyond English Development 403 CHULA VISTA LEARNING COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL: A CASE STUDY 2 Chula Vista Learning Community Charter School (CVLCC) is a dual language school that began in 1998, serving students in grades K-6. In 2009, CVLCC expanded to include grade 7 and has plans to incorporate grade 8 in 2010. Drawing on a 50/50 model, one half of the day’s instruction is conducted in Spanish with the other half conducted in English. Instruction for Spanish language arts, writing, history/social science, and science (for grades K-3), is conducted in Spanish. English instruction focuses on English language arts, mathematics, and science (for grades 4-8). The school serves a majority of LOTE (Spanish) speakers, with many of the native English speakers commuting from outside communities. Their mission is to serve as a model for student achievement via standards-based curriculum, bilingualism, and parent and community participation (“Our Mission,” 2009). CVLCC outlines their core beliefs as including a commitment to “academic, social, civic, and character development” as well as celebrating diversity, establishing a learning community, valuing other languages, achieving academic excellence, and developing in students an awareness of global perspectives (“Our Mission,” 2009). Several key features of CVLCC include its MicroSociety® Program, a research-based program in which classrooms function as small global communities. Working with community volunteers, students spend one class period each day “on the job” applying what they learned during their classes: [The students] learn to run businesses, apply technology, develop government and social agencies, and create cultural/arts organizations. Gradually, students become immersed in the realities of a free-market economy, replete with taxes, property concerns, income issues, and politics. MicroSociety® enables teachers to answer two persistent questions students ask: ‘Why do I need to know this?’ and ‘How do I fit in?’ (“Our Mission,” 2009) Another unique feature of CVLCC is the Intergenerational Program, in which senior citizens participate in daily activities as a way to build and strengthen intergenerational relationships between students and older adults. To meet these goals, affordable housing for senior citizens was created on the school campus. A third feature of CVLCC is their Service 404 National Society for the Study of Education Learning Projects. These projects align with the MicroSociety® Program goals and involve a process of action research in which students investigate local community needs, identify a plan for service, enact their plan, and reflect on its implementation and effectiveness. The story of CVLCC is both interesting and familiar: It is a story of educators and parents who believe in the benefits of a bilingual education for majority and minority speakers alike. It is a story of educators and parents using what could be considered a conservative model, the charter school, to implement and realize a progressive agenda, bilingualism and biliteracy development from an additive perspective. It is also a story of adaptation and evolution, as the CVLCC community faces the sociopolitical pressures of a narrow view of success, which, regardless of program goals, is determined via English-language performance measures. One of the critical pressures experienced by schools, particularly those serving ELLs, is the emphasis on success defined by performance on English-language assessment measures. Thus, as bilingual programs evolve, they are faced with decisions on what should count as “success” and how to balance internal program goals with those outside pressures that often do not value or measure the goals of bilingualism and biliteracy. As is often the case, these tensions increased to the point where CVLCC’s bilingual program was at risk of being dismantled for not demonstrating acceptable levels of English acquisition as determined by the state and expected of all schools regardless of program model or students served. It is in these moments that bilingual programs make difficult choices and find themselves adapting and evolving to survive. In this case example, amidst district and state pressures to “perform” to standardized English assessments, CVLCC faced possible revocation of their charter and the loss of their bilingual program in favor of English-only programs. With little time to “show progress,” CVLCC’s adaptation centered on a critical decision to change the language of instruction in two key content areas, reading and mathematics, from Spanish to English. In doing so, CVLCC placed concentrated efforts on developing English proficiency in the two areas the state assesses and monitors in their process of deciding the effectiveness and progress of schools. It is important to note that, in an effort to maintain its goals of biliteracy and bilingualism, the school continues to maintain a Spanish language arts program and an emphasis on writing in Spanish. The story of the evolution of CVLCC’s bilingual program has an interesting and ironic twist. In 2009, five years after facing a stern warning from the district superintendent and a possible revocation of their charter, leading to critical changes to their program, CVLCC was heralded by Beyond English Development 405 a visit from California’s Governor Schwarzenegger who recognized the school as a model charter program. The occasion was induced by CVLCC’s performance on the California Standards Test—CVLCC outperformed all other schools in the district in math, with nearly 87% of students scoring proficient or advanced, and also saw significantly increased scores in English language arts, with over 67% of students achieving proficient or advanced (Millican, 2009). In addition, the governor recognized CVLCC for having the highest attendance rate in the district and for their high levels of parental participation. Ironically, to maintain its mission of bilingualism and to meet the standards of a model school, CVLCC educators had to adapt their model and diminish some Spanish instruction. Nonetheless, the principal and teachers at CVLCC attribute much of this success to the extremely high and consistent expectations for teachers to use and teach high levels of academic Spanish, along with a strong focus on writing in Spanish. CVLCC’s history highlights the tensions faced by many bilingual programs, and their responses to these tensions illustrate the ways bilingual programs evolve to survive. Each of the schools described above share the story of negotiating priorities of bilingualism with pressures of accountability in English and finding a space somewhere in between for ELL student success. IMPLICATIONS In this chapter, we discussed the shifts in the field of second language acquisition research and the evolution of bilingual education in the twenty-first century. While extensive reviews of the research concerning English language learners have indicated the educational benefits of using bilingual instructional practices (i.e., Genesee et al., 2006), they have also revealed sociopolitical constraints that make instruction in LOTEs challenging. In part, to survive in a sociopolitical climate that is often anti-immigrant, bilingual education has had to broaden its discourse to include language-majority students as language learners. While bilingual education must continue to provide an equitable education for language-minority students, schools that continue to thrive now emphasize enrichment education for all students. As the field and the situation in schools change, teacher education programs must also adapt to prepare teachers who are aware of ELL needs and responsive to the workings and reworkings of bilingual schools situated in a contentious sociopolitical climate. An important part of the professional curriculum for future bilingual teachers is theoretical grounding in language learning. Bilingual teacher candidates need to understand language learning as a social process and consider the con- 406 National Society for the Study of Education textual factors that contribute to second language development, literacy, and academic success. In addition to the theoretical background of language learning, future bilingual teachers should know how to organize sheltered instruction for their students in both languages, making allowances for language learners. Given the goals of developing bilingualism and biliteracy for all students, future teachers will need to know how to coordinate and overlap content, language, and cross-cultural objectives. Having a pragmatic framework, such as the TWIOP, will be key for future immersion teachers as they move into their first year of teaching. Because interaction and small-group tasks are an integral part of language learning, it is important that teacher education programs provide theoretical knowledge about and experiential work with small-group instruction. When implementing the theory of cooperative learning, new bilingual teachers must be prepared for inequities that will emerge in their classrooms because of the academic, socioeconomic, and cultural diversity of their students. Teachers must be aware of the most common problems found in cooperative learning and must be equipped with tools to deal with equalizing participation and infusing challenging content into small-group tasks. Although dual language programs are closing the achievement gap between ELLs and native speakers of English, helping future teachers continue to work toward closing that gap will be key. This can be accomplished by teachers designing rigorous curricular tasks, having the highest academic expectations of their students, and scaffolding and supporting students linguistically, academically, and with cross-cultural awareness. Lastly, as described in this chapter, bilingual education exists within a larger sociopolitical context in which pedagogical and programmatic decisions are decided. Perhaps even more important than pedagogical knowledge is a deep understanding of the ideologies that influence both pedagogy and programs so that teachers may be empowered to act as critical decision makers, knowledgeable about their roles within a continuously evolving education system and the impact their daily decisions have on the linguistic, academic, and cultural development of the immigrant and ELL populations they serve. Notes 1. The authors found no reliable data at the national level on specific educational programs for ELLs. While some states, such as California, have excellent reporting systems, most do not. Based on state reporting, the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/) has published some data on bilingual vs. Englishonly enrollments. However, this data is unreliable because many states do not distinguish Beyond English Development 407 between native-language instruction and native-language “support,” which may include occasional translation help from paraprofessionals. 2. Many schools use the term two-way immersion (TWI) or two-way bilingual immersion and dual immersion interchangeably; however, TWI is a particular type of dual language program that serves a balance of native English speakers and native LOTE speakers. Even schools that do not have a balanced population often claim to be adopting a TWI program, since these programs have been looked upon favorably in recent years, in contrast to similar programs named bilingual programs. For more information on the definition of TWI, see CAL’s TWI directory website (http://www.cal.org/twi/) and the dual language consortium website (http://www.dual-language.org/what_is1.htm). 3. TWI refers to a particular type of dual language program that serves a balance of native English speakers and native LOTE speakers, although this balance is not always possible because of school demographics. Because many schools themselves use the term dual language, throughout the remainder of this chapter, we use the broader term, dual language (which includes TWI programs). 4. Fitts (2006) problematizes the separation of languages in dual language programs, which does not reflect bilingual language practices common outside the classroom where bilinguals often draw upon two or more languages within the same space. Teachers in dual language programs are often expected to be monolingual models, using only the target language, rather than bilingual models that know when to use both languages. This is discussed further below. 5. The information provided in this case study section is based on first hand research conducted by the authors. References Alanis, I. (2000). A Texas two-way bilingual program: Its effects on linguistic and academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(3), 225–248. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bahamonde, C., & Friend, M. (1999). Teaching English language learners: A proposal for effective service delivery through collaboration and co-teaching. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 10(1), 1–24. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Beliefs. (n.d.). Francis Scott Key Elementary School. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.apsva.us/155520910144755450/site/default.asp Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The science and psychology of second language acquisition. New York: Basic Books. Bikle, K., Billings, E., & Hakuta, K. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion research. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 589–604). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Camarota, S. A. (2007, November). Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A profile of America’s foreign-born population. Backgrounder. Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http://www.cis.org/articles/ 2007/back1007.pdf 408 National Society for the Study of Education Center for Applied Linguistics. (2009). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion programs in the U.S. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory Christian, D. (1996). Two-way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66–76. Christian, D., Howard, E. R., & Loeb, M. I. (2000). Bilingualism for all: Two-way immersion education in the United States. Theory into Practice, 39(4), 258–266. Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. Cohen, E. (1997). Equity in heterogeneous classrooms: A challenge for teachers and sociologists. In E. Cohen & R. Lotan (Eds.), Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms (pp. 2–14). New York: Teachers College Press. Collier, V. P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(4), 443–472. Crawford, J. (2002). Obituary: The Bilingual Ed Act, 1968-2002. Rethinking Schools, 16(4). Retrieved October 3, 2009, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_04/ Bil164.shtml Crawford, J. (2003). A few things Ron Unz would prefer you didn’t know about…English learners in California. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www.languagepolicy.net/ archives/castats.htm Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–25l. Cummins, J. (1984). Language proficiency and academic achievement revisited: A response. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 71–76). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and information technology: Towards a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 537–548. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliqué, 10(2), 221–240. de Jong, E. J. (2002). Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 1–20. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program: Había una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fillmore, L. W. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 49–69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fillmore, L. W., & Valadez, C. (1986). Teaching bilingual learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 648–685). New York: Macmillan. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91(5), 800–819. Beyond English Development 409 Fitts, S. (2006). Reconstructing the status quo: Linguistic interaction in a dual-language school. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 337–365. Fránquiz, M., & Reyes, M. L. (1998). Creating inclusive learning communities through English language arts: From chanclas to canicas. Language Arts, 75(3), 211–219. Freeman, R. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Frequently asked questions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www2.yisd.net/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=74655&&PHPSESSID=a4d45bc6a76c1b16fffe729e2729b6d1 Galindo, R. (1993). The influence of peer culture on Mexican-origin bilingual children’s interpretations of a literacy event. Bilingual Research Journal, 17(3/4), 71–98. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. García, G. G., & Beltrán, D. (2005). Revisioning the blueprint: Building for the academic success of English learners. In G. G. García (Ed.), English language learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 197–225). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H., & Chiu, M. (1999). A cultural-historical approach to collaboration: Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 87–93. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hayes, R. (2005). Conversation, negotiation, and the word as deed: Linguistic interaction in a dual language program. Linguistics and Education, 16, 93–112. Hernández, A. (2001). The expected and unexpected literacy outcomes of bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3), 251–276. Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and Education, 8, 75–86. Howard, E. R., Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2003). The development of bilingualism and biliteracy from Grades 3 to 5: A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-way immersion education (Research Report 12). Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Howard, E. R., & Sugarman, J. (2001). Two-way immersion programs: Features and statistics. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/0101twi.html Howard, E. R., & Sugarman, J. (2007). Realizing the vision of two-way immersion: Fostering effective programs and classrooms. Washington, DC, and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education: A review of the research (Report No. 63). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Coburn, C. (2006). Adapting the sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) for two-way immersion education: An introduction to the TWIOP. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Jiménez, R. T. (2000). Literacy and the identity development of Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 37(4), 971–1000. 410 National Society for the Study of Education Jimenez, R. T, Garcia, G., & Pearson, P. D. (1995). Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 67–97. Kagan, S. (2000). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan. Kindler, A. L. (1995). Education of migrant children in the United States. Directions in Language and Education: National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education, 1(8). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Lanauze, M., & Snow, C. (1989). The relation between first- and second-language writing skills: Evidence from Puerto Rican elementary school children in bilingual programs. Linguistics and Education, 1, 323–340. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity: Understanding learners as people. In M. Breen (Eds.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). London: Longman. Lee, J. S., Bonnet-Hill, L., & Gillespie, J. (2008). Learning in two languages: Interactional space for becoming bilingual speakers. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 75–94. Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lindholm-Leary, K. (2004). The rich promise of two-way immersion. Educational Leadership, 62(4) 56–59. Lindholm-Leary, K., & Borsato, G. (2001). Impact of two-way bilingual elementary programs on students’ attitudes toward school and college (Research Report 10). Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence. Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). London: Academic Press. Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207–228. Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. A series of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497. MacSwan, J. (2000). The threshold hypothesis, semilingualism, and other contributions to a deficit view of linguistic minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(3), 3–45. MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2003). Linguistic diversity, schooling, and social class: Rethinking our conceptualization of language proficiency in language minority education. In C. B. Paulston & G. R. Tucker (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: The essential readings (pp. 329–40). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Martin-Beltrán, M. (2006). Opportunities for language exchange between language minority and language majority students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. Martin-Beltrán, M. (2009). Cultivating space for the language boomerang: The interplay of two languages as academic resources. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2), 25–53 Martin-Beltrán, M. (2010). The two-way language bridge: Co-constructing bilingual language learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal. 94, 254-277. Matthews, M. S., & Matthews, P. H. (2004). Heritage language instruction and giftedness in language minority students: Pathways toward success. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 50–55. Beyond English Development 411 Millican, A. (2009). Governor praises CVLCC as a model for state education reform. Chula Vista Learning News. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http://www.cvesd.org/ chulavistalearning/news.aspx Nagy, W. E., García, G. G., Durgunoglu, A., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual students’ use of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 241–59. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (n.d.). Types of Language Instructional Programs (LIEPS). Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/5/Language_Instruction_Educational_Progr ams.pdf Nieto, S. (2001). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Our mission and core beliefs. (2009). Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http://www.cvesd.org/chulavistalearning/school-vision.aspx Ovando, C. J., Combs, M. C., & Collier, V. P. (2006). Bilingual & ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. Palmer, D. (2006). Diversity up close: Building alternative discourses in the two-way immersion classroom. In T. Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 97–118). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Palmer, D. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual classroom: “Everybody should be listening to Jonathan right now…”. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 177–202. Pérez, B. (2004). Becoming biliterate: A study of two-way bilingual immersion education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. Pressley, M. (1998). Balanced reading instruction. New York: Guilford. Qin, Z., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129–143. Ramírez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit programs for language-minority children (Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Rolstad, K. (1997). Effects of two-way immersion on the ethnic identification of third language students: An exploratory study. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(1), 43–63. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594. Royar, J., & Carlo, M. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal of Reading, 34(6), 450–455. Ruiz, R. (1988). Orientations in language planning. In S. McKay & S. L. Wong (Eds.), Language diversity: Problem or resource? (pp. 3–25). New York: Newbury House. Schirling, E., Contreras, F., & Ayala, C. (2000). Proposition 227: Tales from the schoolhouse. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1/2), 127–140. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13. Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Slavin, R. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69. 412 National Society for the Study of Education Slavin, R., & Karweit, N. I. (1985). Effects of whole-class, ability grouped, and individualized instruction on mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 22(3), 351–367. Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2009). Educating Latino immigrant students in the twenty-first century: Principles for the Obama administration. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 327–340. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomas, W. P., &. Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students’ longterm academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement: Final report. Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. ELSA BILLINGS is an assistant professor in the Department of Policy Studies in the Language and Cross-cultural Education Department at San Diego State University. She is a former bilingual classroom teacher and is the co-creator of an online certification program for teachers of English learners at Stanford University. She has a range of publications concerned with issues that impact the academic opportunities and success of English learners (ELs), with particular interests in the experiences of ELs and the professional development, values and experiences of the teachers who teach them. Her publications have appeared in journals and books such as the Journal of Latinos in Education, the Bilingual Research Journal, the International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, and the Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. MELINDA MARTIN-BELTRAN is an assistant professor specializing in Second Language Education in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. She has worked as a bilingual and ESOL teacher in the United States and Latin America. She has published articles in journals such as English Teaching: Practice and Critique and The Modern Language Journal. Her research interests include classroom interaction and discourse, educational equity for language minority students, sociocultural perspectives on language learning, and preparing teachers for culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Beyond English Development 413 ANITA HERNANDEZ is an associate professor and the Don and Sarrah Kidd Endowed Chair for Literacy, specializing in literacy/biliteracy in the College of Education at New Mexico State University. She has also taught for the California State University (CSU) International Program in Querétero, México. She is a former bilingual classroom teacher and coordinator of a college migrant education program. She has coauthored two books for classroom teachers titled: Theme Sets for Secondary Students: How to Scaffold Core Literature and Interactive Notebooks and English Language Learners: How to Scaffold Content for Academic Success. She has published articles in such journals as Bilingual Research Journal and Reading Teacher. Her research interests include the literacy development of English learners, professional development of teachers of English learners, and the education of pre-service teachers. Race, Power, and Equity in a Multiethnic Urban Elementary School with a Dual-Language “Strand” Program aeq_1069 94..114 DEBORAH PALMER University of Texas at Austin Dual-language education is often lauded for providing high-caliber bilingual instruction in an integrated classroom. This is complicated, however, when a dual-language program does not include all members of a school community. This article examines a “strand” dual-language program that attracts middle-class white students to a predominantly black and Latino community; yet, only some Latino students and almost no black students are included in the dual-language program. Although rarely directly discussing race, teachers and parents simultaneously commend the program for bringing diversity and enrichment to the campus, and accuse it of exacerbating inequities in the educational experiences of different children at the school. Taking a critical race perspective, and in particular using the principle of “interest convergence” and the frames of “color-blind racism” (Eduardo Bonilla-Silva 2006), this article works to uncover the forces underlying these tensions. [two-way immersion, dual-language education, African Americans, critical race theory] Dual-language education, also known as “Two-Way Immersion” (TWI), is an increasingly popular form of bilingual education in the United States in which English-speaking children and minority language speakers learn together in the same classroom, with the goals of bilingualism, biliteracy, cross-cultural understanding, and high academic achievement for all (Lindholm-Leary 2001). Dual-language classrooms typically divide their days or weeks between the two languages of instruction, expecting all class members to interact in only one language at a time (Hornberger 2005; Pérez 2004; Reyes 2001). An effort is made to ensure a balance of students between Spanish and English native speakers in each classroom. Teachers teach both languages through content according to preset program design decisions. Even as traditional bilingual education programs are under attack in the United States, dual-language education is on the rise (Center for Applied Linguistics 2003). Although there have been some critiques of the model, posing the question of who these programs actually serve and wondering about the effects of incorporating English-speaking children into bilingual classrooms—particularly powerful, middle-class English-speaking children (Valdés 1997)—researchers, practitioners, parents, and students almost universally applaud this relatively new model for bilingual education, and encourage its expansion (Christian et al. 1997; Cloud et al. 2000; Lindholm-Leary 2001; Thomas and Collier 2002). The model calls on teachers, parents, and school leaders to pay explicit attention to cultural and linguistic diversity and to help children reach across divides. There are explicit stated goals of cross-cultural understanding and high academic achievement for all students in TWI classrooms, implying that equity for all participants is a priority. This article draws on the “interest convergence” principle in critical race theory (Bell 1980; Dixson and Rousseau 2006; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995) to interrogate the equity of one Two Way program, looking in particular at admissions policies, enrollment patterns, and faculty and staff attitudes about African American involvement (or lack of involvement) in the program, and using a methodology of ethnographic observation and interview. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 41, Issue 1, pp.94–114, ISSN 0161-7761, online ISSN 1548-1492. © 2010 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01069.x. 94 Palmer Race and Equity in Dual Immersion 95 Although many dual-language programs eventually take over entire school sites, the program that is the focus of this article is a “strand” program. This means that it is situated in an English-language mainstream public school much as a transitional bilingual education program might be, with one classroom out of two or three at every grade level dedicated to Spanish–English dual-language instruction, and the other classes conducted entirely in English. It is only a strand program, rather than a “whole school” program, because the TWI program at Medgar Evers (pseudonym) was designed to replace, year by year, the transitional bilingual education program that existed previously. It is only in the year of this study that the first cohort of TWI students has reached fifth grade, and the transitional program has finally been phased out completely. Taking a snapshot in the year of the study, the school appears on the surface to be very integrated. The student body is split almost evenly between African Americans, Latinos, and whites. Yet a closer look reveals some irregularities. Except for the odd student here and there, African American students are not enrolled in the TWI program, and a significant portion of Latino students are in English-medium classes, because half the spots in TWI classrooms (unlike the transitional bilingual classrooms they replaced) go to mainly white middle-class, English-speaking children. Thus, the TWI program, explicitly designed to promote equity and help children bridge cultural and linguistic differences, at the same time appears to exclude African American children. Furthermore, begun in a spirit of equity, to improve the academic achievement of the marginalized population or Latino Spanish-speaking students, the program as enacted reduces the number of spots available to those children in favor of mostly white, middle-class, English-speaking students. Although teachers and school leaders recognize these problems, on various levels and for various reasons they have not moved to remedy them. Who benefits most from this TWI program? I argue that the principle of “interest convergence,” identified in critical race theory can help us respond to this question (Bell 1980; Dixson and Rousseau 2006; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995). The Latino students in the two-way program benefit from its high caliber academic offerings, and the students of color (both black and Latino)1 throughout the school benefit from the added resources of the white middle-class families who have joined the campus to take advantage of the attractive two-way program. However, it is only possible for these marginalized communities to reap the benefits of the program because of the converging interests of the white middle-class community. Merely gaining admission to the special magnet TWI program poses serious challenges to both blacks and Latinos in the neighborhood surrounding the school. The reasons for these challenges are complex, and involve not only institutionally sanctioned admissions and administrative policies but also attitudes of “color-blind racism” (Bonilla-Silva 2006) and an unwillingness to openly confront issues of race (Castagno 2008). Literature Review: African American Children in TWI Programs There is still very little research around the participation of African American children in TWI programs. Not surprisingly, it appears clear in the limited studies that have been conducted that African American children have the same capacity to excel in languageimmersion programs as children from other racial backgrounds (Holobow et al. 1991; Lightbown 2007; Nicoladis et al. 1998). Yet the inclusion of African American children in TWI programs still appears to be controversial and challenging for a number of reasons, and therefore worthy of further study (Bender 2000; Krause 1999; Valdés 2002; Wiese 2004). First of all, as Valdés (2002) points out, many—if not most—two-way schools tend to view their populations in dichotomous terms, with generally white middle-class children as the “English-dominant” students and Latino immigrant children as the “Spanish- 96 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 41, 2010 dominant” students. In describing the school she called “Metro2,” a dual-language school in a large urban school district in Southern California, Amanda Lewis (2003) notes that there are very few African American children in the school; this is not uncommon, and was the case in the school that is the subject of this article. Of the 335 TWI programs that are currently listed in the “Directory of TWI Programs,” only 13 report that more than 50 percent of their native English-speaking students are African American, whereas 189 report that African Americans compose less than five percent of their native English speakers (Center for Applied Linguistics 2008). There are TWI schools that explicitly strive to serve African American children. However, the task of educating urban African American poor or working-class children, in particular, in a dual-language program appears to be a challenging one, according to some research. Some researchers have documented situations in which African American children appear to be underserved in two-way programs, their particular cultural, linguistic, and academic needs remaining unmet (Bender 2000; Krause 1999; Wiese 2004). Krause (1999) found that despite a school’s specific efforts to include African American heritage components in the curriculum and to provide African American students with enhanced supports, African American children were more likely to leave the school before graduating from fifth grade and were more likely to be behind in reading than their white or Latino peers. The author speculated that perhaps it was not race but dialectal issues, that is, speaking black vernacular English, rather than a more standard register, that was the true predictor of low reading level and high rates of attrition among black children. Weise (2004) tracked a school’s struggle to find ways to adapt their TWI program model to better meet the needs of low-achieving African American students who appeared not to be gaining from Spanish instruction. Largely through the lens of one teacher who struggles with the decision of whether to compromise her adherence to the two-way “program model” to adapt to the unique needs of her students, Weise presents the tension as one between “following the model” and “meeting the needs of” largely poor African American students. Bender (2000) explores the attitudes of teachers toward language use and intergroup relations in a dual-language program serving entirely African American and Puerto Rican children in poverty. All of the children in the program Bender describes were speakers of nonstandard dialects of either English, or Spanish, or both. She found that the program’s successful implementation was constrained in part by teachers’ misconceptions about the process of language learning, lack of preparation in curriculum or teaching of language and content, and deficit attitudes toward their minority students. Furthermore, structural features of the program and administrative decisions failed to address the root causes of the intergroup tensions the program had been developed to help overcome. Thus, according to these researchers, integrating African American children in TWI settings poses unique challenges that researchers and practitioners have yet to fully investigate or overcome (Valdés 2002). Others, meanwhile, have documented two-way programs making concerted efforts to specifically address the needs of African American students, or have shown that these programs can serve poor, urban black children better than their regular neighborhood schools (Holobow et al. 1991; Howard et al. 2003; Lightbown 2007; Nicoladis et al. 1998). In 2000, Parchia (see Howard et al. 2003) interviewed African American parents and children in two TWI schools on the East coast. She found that although parents and children did not feel that their own particular cultural or academic concerns were reflected in the TWI programs in which they were enrolled (rather, the programs focused more on Latino culture), they chose to stay in these programs to enhance future educational and job successes. Her interviewees also reported that TWI schools did a far superior job at offering children integrated cross-cultural experiences than the non-TWI schools with which they had had contact. Palmer Race and Equity in Dual Immersion 97 Lightbown’s (2007) study of one TWI school in which most of the English speakers were African Americans from low socioeconomic backgrounds used assessment data to show that these children outperformed children of similar background in English-only programs. The author went on to argue that the TWI program “provided a rich educational opportunity for two groups of students whose academic performance is a source of concern in many schools across the United States: English language learners and AfricanAmerican students from low socioeconomic backgrounds” (Lightbown 2007:30). Nicoladis and colleagues (1998) looked at the performance of African American children to demonstrate that, in a language that is not their first language (and is therefore in a sense an “equalizer” between white and black English speakers), African American children can perform as well as white English-speaking children—particularly when controlling for nonverbal intelligence. Holobow and colleagues (1991) looked at African American children in French-immersion programs in Cincinnati, finding that they did no worse (nor really any better) than African American children in regular educational programs, and yet as a bonus they were able to perform at least some of their academic work in French as well as English. Overall, the jury is still out on the question of whether African American children can be well-served in TWI programs, and most TWI programs do not appear to make much effort to explicitly address their unique language and cultural needs (Valdés 2002). Throughout this research, both educators and researchers toe a fine line between documenting the successes and failures in TWI education to reach and teach black children, and expressing deficit orientations toward black children, their families, and their language (Valencia 1997b). Couching their observations in language terms, educators— both the researchers and the teachers they are studying—express concern that African American children who are speakers of African American vernacular English, or black English, will not provide adequate modeling of English for their English-learning peers. In addition, educators express concern that African American children themselves will struggle in language-immersion programs because they are not “native” speakers of the dominant language of standard English. There appears to be an assumption, hiding within the premises of much of this research, that the value of immersion programs for African American children—unlike for white children—is still in question. There is a certain irony to this, given that among the stated goals of TWI are both high academic achievement and cross-cultural awareness and understanding among all students. Why would this not include African American children? Surely, the challenges posed by a nonstandard dialect of English can be overcome within a program designed to promote multilingualism and multiliteracies. I argue that the dynamics of enrollment and other institutional complexities of schools, as well as the unexamined ideologies of at least some educators within them, may be at least partially responsible for this disparity. Theoretical Frame: Interest Convergence and Color-Blind Racism This article is an examination of a set of ethnographic observation and interview data of the parents and teachers of white, African American, and Latino second grade students in a school with a reputable “strand” dual-language program. For the purposes of this analysis, two specific areas of current theory on race will be most useful: the principles of interest convergence and the “absolute right to exclude,” as explained in the frame of critical race theory; and the pervasiveness of deficit orientations among educators toward students of color in schools, which can be most clearly understood in this context through Bonilla-Silva’s (2006) construct of “color-blind racism” and Hurd’s (2008) construct of “normative whiteness.” 98 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 41, 2010 Emerging from the legal tradition, critical race theory argues that economic forces drive the continued pervasiveness of racism and marginalization of communities of color (Dixson and Rousseau 2006; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995; Parker et al. 1999). Short of an economic revolution, inequities will continue; someone must always be on the bottom. Middle-class and white communities, those in power in both a governmental and economic sense, have allowed overt racism to fade on many fronts, but only in ways that do not truly undermine their maintenance of power. One of the basic principles of critical race theory, known as “interest convergence,” argues that whites will only allow change to happen in the interest of greater equity for disempowered minorities in ways that coincide with their own self-interests (Bell 1980; Donnor 2006; Morris 2006). In other words, every time it appears that whites are giving ground to people of color, in truth the change operates in their own interests. The privileges of whiteness, referred to as “whiteness as property,” include the right to exclude others (Harris 1993). Schools, being institutions that serve those in power, reserve the “absolute right to exclude” certain children through various means, including magnet programs, tracking, access to advanced courses, and so forth (Ladson-Billings 2005:146). This analysis of one TWI program illustrates the principle of interest convergence and the right to exclude. Although the TWI strand program at Medgar Evers gives an appearance of providing greater equity for the children of color at the school, it only does so insofar as it serves the needs of the white and middle-class families who travel across town to attend. Furthermore, spaces in the program are coveted by white community members, and the lottery system and other admissions processes operate in such a way as to make it very difficult for neighborhood African American children to gain entrance. Deficit theory is the “blame the victim” phenomenon that has plagued our public institutions for at least a century (Ryan 1971...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: DUAL LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS

Dual Language in Schools
Name
Institution

1

DUAL LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS

2

Dual Language in Schools
Dual-language education is often experienced by immigrant students from non-English
speaking countries. For instance, my friend on campus emigrated from Brazil when he was in
high school. Having been born and raised in Brazil, my friend came to the U.S at the age of
fifteen and made a transfer to a high school in California. His family moved to the U.S because
his father got a job with United Nations and was posted to the U.S. First, it is necessary to realize
that my friend only took English language classes in school once or twice a week and was raised
speaking Portuguese, and it was the language of instruction and reading in their school back in
Brazil. Therefore, coming into the U.S, he barely knew how to construct a grammatically correct
sentence in English, and his spoken English was even worse.
My friend has been brought up in Rio de Janeiro in a family where he is the only child.
His father is a statistician with the United Nations and was always moving to different placed in
the world. Although his father is fluent in English, he valued the need for cultural backgrounds
so when at home, he always communicated in Portuguese. His mother also speaks Portuguese
and no English at all. From the family setting, it is...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags