I have taught English as a second/foreign language for more than 20 years.  For many of those years I was an advocate for English instruction rather than bilingual programs for English language learners.  I admit that I have a bias towards English instruction for immigrant students who plan to complete their studies in the US public school system.  I firmly believe that students should be functionally literate in the language of their host country.

      Reflecting on my personal life, for my own children I value bilingualism.  My children grew up overseas.  Speaking the language of the host country was expected.  When we lived in Canada my son started his schooling in French immersion.  When my children didn’t receive enough instruction in Spanish in Uruguay, I became an advocate and petitioned the headmaster and then the school board to increase their Spanish time so that they would have a better chance to become bi-literate.   My son speaks and reads Spanish, French, German and is learning Arabic.  My daughter considers herself fluent in Spanish and French.

     In 2000, I returned to the US after 21 years of living, teaching, working overseas.  I returned to teaching ESL in a primary school in Virginia.  It was the first time I had taught at a school in a high poverty area.  It was my first exposure to a school where it seemed that everyone spoke Spanish and that the students were not really concerned about learning English.  I was fascinated by the changes I witnessed and I went back to university to study education, especially multicultural education.

      In my first semester I met Ginger Collier, someone whose books and research on second language acquisition I had devoured for years.  After her presentation, comparing the results of options for second language acquisition, I ventured the comment that I was not convinced of the value of bilingual education.  She looked at me thoughtfully and answered that if I was not a fan of bilingual education it was because I had not observed a well designed program.  She explained that students who have been in an enriched dual language (DL) program for a minimum of 4 years would experience more sustained academic progress in English than students in ESL alone.  

     So I went back to my school and started looking at the DL program in terms of its design.  I studied the differences between transitional and developmental bilingual programs and really delved into the crucial features of dual language.  One of the consistent elements in all the research on effective program design is the separation of the two languages.  That resonated with me and I decided to concentrate on the separation of Spanish and English in the Spanish 50% of the program.

     Out of curiosity, I started to visit the DL classes and was surprised to hear a constant mix of English and Spanish by the teachers.  From that observation surged the question I wish to investigate.  I want to understand why the Spanish teachers in the DL program use so much English.  I want to investigate the attitude of the teachers towards the two languages as media of instruction.  I expect the teachers to tell me that they switch to English because it is easier to communicate with the English speakers.  I expect to find that they have not been given special training in dual language philosophy and practice.  I expect to hear that they feel it doesn’t matter if they switch to English during the Spanish part of the day.  Those responses would signal that the program is not maintaining separate domains for the two languages, which is one of the crucial elements in program design.  Those responses could be dealt with through on-site teacher training on the separation of languages. 

     Or, the teachers may justify their language switching and point me in a research direction that I have missed which downplays the separation of languages.  I won’t know until I talk to the teachers.

      How have my experiences shaped my questions and my beliefs?  As an ESL teacher, I feel that I want to validate my profession by discounting the value of home language education.  I also want to stress the importance of learning the language of the country.   As a caring teacher, I have my students’ best interests at heart.  I want them to learn and to succeed in life—not only in the classroom.  I truly want to find the most effective way for them to learn English in a way that they can have equal access to the curriculum (which is required under Lau v. Nichols).  As an English teacher, my bias has been to teach in English and insist on English.  In many cases, insisting on English in the classroom has not been a problem since the students didn’t have a common language except English.  Only in the past few years have I been in a situation where Spanish is spoken by more than 60% of the student body and it is the only language other than English used in the school.  The ESL teacher in me wants to remind students to use English as their academic language so that they can develop the skills needed to pass the standardized tests. 

     Another strong bias which haunts me is that my years working as a vice-consul with the U.S. Department of State, interviewing prospective visitors to the U.S. and also interviewing immigrants on the border, have made me very aware of who is here legally and who isn’t.  As a taxpayer, I find myself seriously questioning bilingual programs that promote learning in the home language with little progress in English for years.  In my school, I talk to the parents who have been here for 12-15 years and have not been able to dominate English.  What kind of hope do they have for their children who after years in the US public school system do not see the necessity for learning English?  Without English, these students will remain in the underclass of the economy, as are their parents. 

     Another side of me wants to help these students, many of whom were born here, enjoy being American.  Learning the language is a main avenue for assimilation.  They will always have the language of their parents and their ties to the land of their grandparents.  The majority of the students in my school have familial roots in Central American.  Either they or their parents were born in El Salvador or Honduras.  They send money back ‘home’ to support their families and to build their homes and lives for when they return.  Their eyes are turned south of the border.  Parents tell me that their children are not getting enough Spanish in school.  The parents are worried that the children will not be able to communicate with their grandparents and extended family members who remain ‘home’.  Whose responsibility is the maintenance of the home language?  I am still struggling with the answer to that question.

     And yet, according to the Collier & Thomas research, long-term education in the home language is a predictor for success in the second language.   With a well-designed bilingual program, these students can leave school bilingual and bi-literate, with a firm understanding of the curriculum, prepared to continue their education past the secondary level.  I want to believe that.  When I am convinced, I will work very hard to guide the teachers in the DL language program and work with them on keeping to the elements of good program design.  

      I am entering into this study with a bias.  I am willing and hoping to be convinced that the teachers know what they are doing when they switch languages.  I will observe them and talk to them and try to understand when and why they resort to English during the Spanish part of the day.  I will ask about their background in primary school to see if any of their practices are rooted in experience rather than research.  I will try to find out what their research base/training is for being a dual language teacher.  I will try to get their beliefs about language purity versus language switching.

       My experience as an English language teacher is an advantage to me in this study because the goal of a bilingual program is fluency in two languages.  I understand the process and from experience can tell whether the students are progressing at a suitable rate.  Being an English teacher is also a disadvantage because my professional orientation is towards acquisition of English more so than Spanish maintenance.  I must be careful to portray my impartiality to the teachers I interview.  

     My experience of living overseas, having learned various languages and watching my children learn languages has made me very aware of the strengths and weaknesses of various types of programs for language learning.  Years of teaching and living overseas have provided me with understanding of educational practices in schools in many countries.  In fact just last month I returned from two months studying the structure of the education system in Uruguay, in particular recently started English immersion and dual language programs.  Even in Uruguay, 10,000 kilometers from Virginia, the DL programs insisted on the separation of the two languages in their program design.  

      Following the comment from Dr. Collier, I am in search of good program design.  As I examine this specific aspect of the DL program at my school, I will try to keep the cultural, professional and personal lenses open so that I can learn from the teachers I interview rather than filter out what they say when it doesn’t conform to my biases.