|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Products from EDUC 881: Focus session-- Bilingual
education/dual language programs
Powerpoint presentation on dual language programs and
the Wirt & Kirst values in education. (Powerpoint)
|
|
Field project The evolution of a dual language program Looking at decision making
The field project showed the evolution of a dual language
program from conception to implementation. I interviewed a number
of people who were instrumental in the establishment of the program.
I looked at the decisions in terms of Wirt & Kirst's values in education
that guided decision making.
( I tried to import the chart directly
and was unskilled. I'll figure out how to do it eventually.)
Stage 1 decisions The TWS Committee formed the Education Project in 1998 to address the widening gap between the achievement of the white students and the students of color in this suburban school district. In 1999 the committee succeeded in getting School Board approval for a program to address the needs of the language minority in Community School. The committee commissioned a Bilingual Education Research Project that was presented to them by a George Mason researcher in April 1998. The research report included a summary of the Collier & Thomas National Study (1996), and research on the benefits of a dual language program or long-term developmental bilingual programs (Thomas, 1997). Information from the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL, 1998) described the benefits of being bilingual. Also included were pages from the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) website explaining the evolution of federal policy toward language minority students. Therefore, at this point Wirt & Kirst’s value of equity as well as language acquisition research entered into the preparation for decision-making. The Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs (OBEMLA) website was cited with information on types of bilingual program design (based on research) but also included was information on federal law (equity) and the importance of bilingualism in today’s job market (efficiency). The briefing book includes program evaluations and recommendations from bilingual programs in Arlington and Fairfax. The book refers to research on language acquisition as well as Moll’s Funds of Knowledge and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. It is clear that the preparer of the briefing book gathered materials that emphasized research but also included information about equity and efficiency. Therefore, Stage 1 decisions relied heavily on research but the committee took action because they wanted a quality program that would provide choice to the language minority families who sent their children to Community School and would use a research-based program to solve an equity problem. (See Table 1) Stage 2 decisions Stage 2 starts with the approval of the project by the school board and ends when the superintendent assigns a new principal to design the immersion program. The School Board approved the use of Community School as a “focus school” with a Spanish immersion program. According to the principal, it was an era of focus schools as a way to avoid ‘white flight’ (de Jong, 2002). The public schools were not seen as a good choice for children of middle and upper middle class families who were moving into the district. The parents wanted enrichment programs (Cloud, et al, 2000; Crawford, 1999). So the choice to locate a Spanish immersion program, although designed to address equity and quality for language minority families, provided choice to the white parents. Efficiency also entered into the School Board’s decision because Community School was told that the program had to be close to ‘cost neutral’, meaning that the program had to rely on current staffing but would receive money for supplies and books for the entering class. (Communication with former School Board member) The School Board’s decision to approve a focus program addressed economic efficiency but not accountability because the choice of program and administration of that program were delegated to the school’s principal, in collaboration with the assistant superintendent. According to the principal, the superintendent
was mostly concerned with getting a focus school into that area of the
city so that the local parents would send their children to the school.
His decision was not based on research but rather on improving the quality
of the school by encouraging neighborhood parents to support their community
school. He wanted to provide choice for the parents who could afford
to send their children to private schools.
-To summarize the decisions in stages 1 and 2, a failing
school needed a program to increase achievement in the overwhelmingly minority
population. The choice of an immersion program was based on Collier
& Thomas research showing that a dual language program would provide
academic gains for both the English-speakers as well as the Spanish-speakers.
The decision by the TWSC to address the achievement gap at the school was
based on Wirt and Kirst’s values of equity, quality and efficiency.
Choice also enters into the decision because the TWSC could have decided
not to form the Education Project that pushed for quality change in the
local schools.
Stage 3 decisions by the principal
Table 2
The principal’s next priority was to open communication with the parents. She started by conducting monthly meetings with the neighborhood parents who expressed interest in sending their children to Community School and parents whose children were already enrolled. She held open meetings on the establishment of a dual language program at Community School. The parents who attended were asked to visit dual language or immersion programs in neighboring districts. According to the PTA president, the principal marketed the DL program as an enrichment program that would benefit the English-speaking children entering into a global economy. The principal promoted the DL program in the community by appealing to the Wirt & Kirst value of choice. She was offering an option to private schools. Their children would be learning a second language which would benefit them as adults. Also, the principal wanted the neighborhood parents to feel ownership and involvement in the new program and therefore enroll their children in it. This decision reflects research and quality because she knew that a DL program needed parental support and that parental support would increase the quality of the program (Cloud et al, 2000). The next step was to prepare a proposal which outlined the program rationale and the proposed program design. In the first proposal for the DL program at Community School, the program rationale refers to research by Jim Cummins, Eleanor Thonis and Stephen Krashen.**** The rationale and program design were clearly research-based to establish in Community School a researched way of improving learning for both language majority and language minority students. She introduced a program which would improve the quality of the school and the quality of education. The principal was convinced that a DL program would raise SOL scores for the students who were failing (equity) and would raise the prestige of the school in the eyes of neighborhood parents (choice) An integral part of the proposal was the hiring of a Spanish-speaking, family liaison who would maintain communication with the Spanish-speaking parents in an effort to increase their involvement in the school. The family liaison would also offer Spanish literacy and parenting courses. The decision to include the parent liaison position as part of staffing requirements for the program reflects accountability as well as equity because the principal felt strongly that for the success of the program, she needed a way to bring the parents of the failing students into the educational life of their children. She felt that a Spanish speaker, with a background in social work would be able to educate the parents who did not know how to become involved in the school. The liaison also would make home visits and would recruit and train parents as in-school volunteers. From the beginning, the principal wanted to “level the playing field” (Project proposal p.1) (equity) for ELLs by addressing the lack of respect towards Spanish as a language resource (Crawford, 1999) and as a way of raising self-esteem for the Spanish speakers in the DL program and throughout the school. Her vision is to have a totally bilingual school—staff as well as students. When the principal submitted the 3-year proposal for the dual language program at Community School to the School Board in February 2000, the Board requested that the program be open to students from other schools (efficiency, choice). The principal responded that children for the DL program at Community School would be chosen on a first-come/first serve basis from the school’s attendance zone. Her decision to keep the program school-based rather than distict-wide was in order to ensure that the language minority and neighborhood parents would have first choice for this enrichment program (equity). And so, in the school year 2000-01, the first
kindergarten class began in the dual language program at Community School.
It is now in its 4th year of operation.
Discussion The dual language program began on a firm research-based footing. The principal, with her background in bilingual education and her experience as a principal of a bilingual school, is well acquainted with research on second language acquisition and programs for raising achievement for ELLs. According to her, she makes her decisions first and foremost on what is best for the students according to research. The reality is that she does not make the decisions alone. Every decision on program management must take into consideration Wirt & Kirst’s values of education in policy making. As both of our texts point out, many educational decisions are political. Also, since money is usually involved in new programs, economics will be a major factor in decision making. In the decision making described above, the political aspect came out in the School Board’s decision to address the TWSC request. The TWSC had lobbied for a change and were starting to publicize in the local press the inequity between schools in one area of the city and the largely minority schools. The request came at the right time because the School Board had just approved two other focus schools for the same reasons. The dual language program was supposed to be ‘cost neutral’ and yet the principal, in the proposal presented to the Board in February 2000, asked for $65,000 and the Board approved it. The Board member I talked with could not remember why it passed so quickly and could only add that the proposal came at the right time. Therefore, when revisiting the question of whether the decisions in establishing the dual language program were based on research or values of education policy, the conclusion is that they were based on both in many cases as seen in Tables 1 and 2. But also, we have to take into consideration timing. When talking to the principal, the PTA member and the School Board member, all mentioned that the time was right for a dual language program at Community School. The pieces fell into place because it was the right program at the right time. Summary and Recommendations No matter how decisions are made, once a program
is in place, it has to be evaluated and followed so that the students who
the program was designed to serve continue to benefit. Even programs
that are established on a firm research base are affected by decisions
made based on Wirt & Kirst’s values of education which play against
the research. For example, the DL program was originally proposed
as a way to improve language acquisition for Spanish speakers and also
a way for the African-American English-speaking students to experience
more academic success according to research (Cloud et al, 2000; Collier
& Thomas, 2002; Crawford, 1999; Cummins, 2000).
From that example, we see that there needs to be vigilant to monitor that the program continues to serve its original purpose. This program is in danger of letting choice overtake research as the African-American students get pushed out. Also, the Spanish-speaking children are facing less Spanish instruction time because the pressure to pass the English language SOL exams has forced teachers to spend more time teaching concepts in English rather than in Spanish. Once again, an efficiency decision is going against research as the dual language program design changes to suit the desires of the English-speaking parents. At this time, the dual language program presents a quality program in that the children are exposed to learning in two languages. Whether it remains a quality program or succumbs to issues of efficiency, choice and timing, is a matter of concern. As a follow-up to this analysis of how decisions
are made, for my final project I would like to create a workshop on dual
language program design and the critical elements of a well designed program.
Having seen how the influences of quality, efficiency, equity and choice
can play against research in decision making, I would like to point out
how to maintain a quality program which provides choice to neighborhood
families as well as equity to ELLs. Research provides the framework
for an effective program but the practical considerations of how education
decisions are made must be acknowledged and expected when designing and
following through with educational programs.
One flowchart and two charts will be included and the
discussion will center on the explanation of those charts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|