Schools must take responsibility for educating all children, not just those who understand the language.  Not only are schools charged with educating all students but now, with high stakes testing and the emphasis on accountability, the success or failure of language minority students can not be hidden.  Viable options for effectively educating language minority students are known and researched.  Programs which demonstrate success in academics as well as language acquisition should be spotlighted broadly and their success stories applied to schools with similar demographics.  But, when implementing programs for English language learners, schools must assure that the critical features of the specific program are fully understood and followed by teachers, administration and students.

      The student body in U.S. public schools is changing.  In 2000-01 approximately 4.6 million English language learners (ELL) were enrolled in the K-12 public school system.   By 2030, 40% of the school age population will be ELLs (Collier & Thomas, 2002).   As the demographics change and more language minority students enter the schools their needs are going to dictate some of the program choices.  We cannot leave 40% of our student body in programs that do not meet their needs when program options for some of them exist and are successful.

      This paper will concentrate on the options of bilingual programs, looking at the critical features of a successful model and then analyzing one program in terms of one of the critical features.  Even though according to Cloud et al (2000) there are nine critical features which indicate good program design, one of those elements most directly determines whether students receive the kind of instruction which should lead to biliteracy and higher academic achievement in the long run.
 
 

     One of the program options which has been effective in teaching English while allowing language minority (LM) students to learn content material is bilingual education.  Bilingual education is defined as a teaching approach which utilizes two languages as media of classroom instruction for the same group of students (McGroarty, 2001).  Bilingual education approaches recognize and build on the theory that in order to develop high level academic skills in a second language, the student must receive carefully planned and sequenced instruction in both languages.  Academic skills in a second language do not occur naturally simply through exposure to the language (McGroarty, 2002, Valdes, 2001).  Bilingual education recognizes the importance of building on first language skills in learning the second language.

      Well-designed bilingual education programs have instruction in English as a second language (ESL) as a major component of the program.  Since English is the dominant language of the United States, one main goal of bilingual education is to develop not only competency but also high academic skills in English as well as to maintain and continue education in the home language. Using the home language to teach the curriculum while English is being learned provides a way for the ELLs to have access to the content of their grade level while developing language skills.

        At the elementary level, bilingual education programs can be divided into two general approaches:
 

1. Transitional bilingual: Also known as early-exit bilingual education, this approach uses the child’s home language as a resource while transitioning the student into English instruction.   The goal of a transitional program is to mainstream students into English classrooms as soon as possible.  Students are in these programs long enough to develop social language and the ability to communicate in oral English.   For example, if the child entered kindergarten with little or no English, a transitional program would use the student’s primary language part of the instructional day for 1 to 3 years, with the goal of reducing the home language and increasing English as the language of instruction.  Thus the child’s home language is used only until the child can receive curriculum instruction in the dominant language.      Two significant problems surface with transitional programs.  First, they are perceived as remedial programs since they use the home language to remedy deficiency in English.  Also, transitional programs rest on a common misconception that academic proficiency in a second language can be learned in a short period of time.   Another problem is that transitional programs are not concerned with maintaining bilingualism.  Some proponents say that maintaining the home language and growing up bilingual is admirable but teaching the home language should not be the responsibility of the public school system.

2. Developmental bilingual: In contrast to transitional bilingual education, developmental, late-exit or maintenance bilingual programs, use the child’s home language with the goal of developing literacy in both the primary language as well as English.  Children receive at least 50% of daily instruction in their primary language while they are learning English.  Developmental bilingual programs aim at proficiency in both languages rather than funneling the child into an English only curriculum like transitional instruction.  English acquisition is a major goal of developmental programs but not to the detriment of the home language.   Developmental or maintenance programs rest on the major assumption that there is value in the language-minority child’s language and culture.  The goal is to maintain the child’s heritage as well as develop second language skills.  Research has shown that children progress in both English and academic subjects when they receive long-term schooling in their home language (Cummins, 2001; Krashen, 1999; Collier, 1995).  Providing instruction in the primary language, especially in literacy, establishes a strong foundation on which to build English language skills.

     One-way immersion is an example of a developmental model of bilingual education.   Immersion programs were pioneered in Canada to serve English students who wanted to acquire French (Genesee, 1987).  In this type of program students with a common language learn through the home language for a large percentage of the day.  In kindergarten, the LM students may receive 90% of their daily instruction in the home language and only 10% in English.  As they reach 2nd or 3rd grade, the ratio changes to 50% and 50%.   Other program designs use the 50/50 model from the beginning.  Immersion programs strengthen the child’s primary language and then use first language knowledge as a foundation for second language learning (Cloud et al, 2000).

     The one-way immersion model has received criticism from those who see long-term bilingual education solely as teaching in a language other than English, and ignore that English skills are also developing through the ESL component of the program.  Some opponents who propose an English Only approach look at immersion models as a waste of taxpayers’ money because LM students in public school are learning in a language other than English.  Nieto (1999) expresses this idea by stating that “the very thought that children in schools in the United States could be using a language other than English to learn has enraged some citizens and politicians” (p. 86).  These programs challenge the assimilationist view that Americans must speak the same language.  If children learn in another language, it is the responsibility of the community or family, and not the publicly funded school.  The recent influence of Ron Unz and English Only, instrumental in the passage of anti-bilingual education legislation in California, Arizona and Massachusetts, promotes the false conception that teaching children in their native language is keeping them in a holding pattern when they should be learning English (Nieto, 1999).

     A developmental bilingual approach which has much more community support and less political opposition is two-way immersion, also knows as Dual Language (DL).   In two-way immersion a group of students from the minority language and a similar group from the majority language study together in one class.  The program design can be 90/10 or 50/50 as described in one-way immersion.   The goal of the two-way immersion program is literacy for both groups and in both languages.

     One of the advantages of dual language instruction is that both languages are treated with equal respect as academic languages.  Neither language is considered superior since biliteracy is the goal.  This is especially important when one of the languages is considered a low status language and/or is at risk for suppression (Diaz-Rico, 2002).  In the 90/10 model, the minority language is used 90% of the time at the beginning to immerse the language majority students in their new language.  The majority language is dominant outside the classroom and so sufficient exposure to the dominant language is not problematic (Cloud et al, 2000).  As the English speakers become acquainted with Spanish as an academic language, the amount of Spanish decreases until there is a 50/50 balance.

      Another advantage of dual language programs is the appeal that they have to language majority families who want their children to grow up learning a second language.  Therefore, they have more community appeal and are more easily adopted than one-way immersion programs which are designed for only language minority students (Diaz-Rico, 2002).

     Recent research on the effectiveness of language acquisition program options shows that long-term DL programs provide the most long-lasting academic gains (Collier & Thomas, 2002).   The Collier research shows that English language learners benefit from at least four years of home language support and these four years can coincide with four years of English language instruction.  Four years of DL instruction would therefore be the most efficient use of time for acquiring English as well as maintaining the home language.  In the long run, English language learners who receive sustained dual language instruction are best equipped to meet, maintain and sometimes surpass, the academic standards attained by native English speakers (Collier & Thomas, 2002).

     One of the major advantages of a dual language program occurs through the daily interaction of the two language groups.  The two groups learn about each other’s culture and how to communicate to and with that culture group.  Since the two groups live in the same neighborhood or at least the same school district, speaking each other’s language and interacting at the school can help mediate cultural differences and lead to an appreciation of differences.

     Recent research on school reform and successful programs for language minority students points out a number of critical characteristics.  Nieto lists five kinds of school reform which can substantially improve student learning (Nieto, 1999).  Cummins presents a four-point theoretical framework for increasing student empowerment, which will lead to better academic performance for language minority students (2001).  Banks describes five dimensions to guide school reform when trying to implement multicultural education (Banks, 2003). Cloud, Genesee and Hamayan integrate all of these factors while describing the nine critical features of a successful dual language program (2000).  They note in their Handbook for Enriched Education that the features of an effective bilingual program are also the features, in general, of well-designed multicultural, general education programs (p.9).

      Parent involvement is integral to program success.  The first critical feature stresses the importance of including parents from the beginning of the program.  Dual language serves the needs of minority parents who do not speak English.  Language minority parents often request that their children receive instruction in a language that the parents understand so that they can help the children at home.  The children of language majority parents learn a second language with native speaking models.
One of the added benefits of a DL program is that the parents from the two cultures get to know each other through parent meetings and social gatherings in the classroom or at school.  Since the parents come from the same neighborhood, the communication between groups spills over into the community.

       Cummins notes “…when educators involve minority parents as partners in their children’s education, parents appear to develop a sense of efficacy that communicates itself to children with positive academic consequences” (p. 664). Many times school failure is partially attributed to parental illiteracy and parental lack of interest in education.  But in a dual language program, since the parents are involved from the beginning, all parents—majority and minority—take an active part in the program through meetings, planning sessions and parent/children activities.   Parents in an effective dual language program are encouraged to monitor their children’s progress and to spend time in the classroom to observe how the children are being taught as well as how they are learning (Cloud, 2000).  The child’s education is part of the global picture, not an isolated event.  Nieto expresses this feature in her point that “those most intimately connected with the students need to be meaningfully involved in their education” (p. 168).

     Effective programs have high standards.  Many of the other program models for English language acquisition are looked at as ‘deficit’ models.  In other words deficit models, like short-term structured immersion, teach something that the students are lacking so that they can catch up with the other students in the class.   For example, in an ESL content class, the students receive simplified content in simplified English, designed for them to understand the content as they are learning the language.  In a DL program, all the students are beginning from the same point.  The Spanish speakers are learning English, the English speakers are learning Spanish and both groups are learning the content of the curriculum.  No group is looked upon as starting out in a deficit position.  In a DL program, it is very important that all the teachers, parents and students involved look at the chance to learn in two languages as an enrichment program and not as a way to help at-risk students learn in their native language.  High expectations for all to succeed form one of the basic premises for a successful DL program.

      This feature of DL programs correlates with Nieto’s point that school reform must be built on high expectations and rigorous standards for all learners (1999).  It also is part of Banks’ empowering school culture dimension since all students are receiving high quality instruction with the goal of high achievement for all (Banks, 2003).
Strong leadership is critical for effective programs.  The administrators and the teachers in a DL program must be committed to the goals of biliteracy and biculturalism. The administration must promote the atmosphere that all students can achieve high academic levels.  They must also foster staff development for all teachers so that the goals of multicultural education are understood by all, not only the teachers in the dual language program.  Administrators must also make sure that the program maintains language equity so that each language is used equally or at least valued equally.  Respect for both languages as languages of instruction conveys the message that neither language is inferior (Cloud et al, 2000; McGroarty, 2001).

     Effective programs are developmental.  In a dual language program, the parents and school administrators must realize that long-term benefits will occur if the students stay in the program for at least four years.  During the years in the program, the children should be exposed to continued development in language and academic domains.  Teachers must link instruction to the strengths of the students (Nieto, 1999) and use knowledge of the minority culture when looking at ways of learning and planning instruction.  LM students come to the program with strengths and learning strategies which may not be part of the majority learning experience.  Dual language professionals must strive to incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy when dealing with language learners (Cloud, 2000; Cummins, 2001; Banks, 2003).

      Collier states that the dual language program is most effective when the students have participated for at least four years.  Parents, students and the schools involved must be cognizant of the length of time for long-lasting results and commit to a minimum of four years in the program (Collier & Thomas, 2002).   Taking into consideration the developmental nature of language learning, student test results may not show strong gains until years 4 or 5 of the program.

     Effective instruction is student-centered.  The strengths of individual students may be overlooked if the teacher looks at each language group as a homogeneous group.  Just as all English-speaking students do not share the same cultural background, the primary language group of students in a dual language class should not be grouped together as an entity.  The individual student’s strengths and talents must be seen as an enhancement to their education (Nieto, 1999).

     Traditional language arts curricula are based on the assumption that language development is the same for all children, regardless of their ethnic origin (Ovando, 2003).  And, this line of natural development is based on the dominant, English, middle-class child.  In a dual language program, methodology must be drawn from both cultural groups and must show respect for the background and experiences of the language minority child.

     Language instruction is integrated with challenging academic instruction.  This critical feature of dual language programs stresses that language instruction, in both languages, must go beyond the basic social interaction skills.  The goal of DL programs is to produce biliterate students who can perform at high standards in academic subjects.  The ability to understand, perform in, and manipulate academic language is an important goal of an effective dual language program.  This point is connected with the idea that all students can achieve and that they must be challenged.  If the curriculum is watered down, the students will realize that they are not expected to perform to high standards.  This feature is one which differentiates developmental models from transitional.  The students in a DL program are expected to learn academic content in both languages.  Being able to function socially is not as important as being able to learn in both English and another language.

     Teachers in effective programs are reflective about curriculum and instruction.  Teachers who teach in a bilingual setting draw on research from language acquisition as well as foreign language learning and immersion education for English-dominant students.  The teachers must be very well trained and use that training to plan lessons which will be effective to those whose language is not being used.  Teachers should be involved in team planning and viewing the curriculum from a cross-grade level perspective.  Teachers should also encourage student self-assessment and peer-assessment.  Parental feedback should be invited to give their input to how and what their children are learning.  By collecting and reflecting on the program and the curriculum, teachers will be able to learn and grow professionally as well as develop a program which serves the needs of every child in the dual language experience.

     Cloud et al refer to the reflective teacher as one who is up-to-date on recent research in the language acquisition field and applies it in the DL classroom.  For example, teachers must be aware of and use research dealing with translation in class, stating that in situations where the teacher needs to explain complicated concepts, the temptation is to use translation for those who don’t understand.  But research shows that when translation is used in a dual language situation, students do not learn the target language but rather wait for the translation (Diaz-Rico, 2002).  The danger of using frequent translation is that the students tune out until they hear their own language.

     Besides being knowledgeable about language acquisition theory, teachers in dual language programs must be trained to work effectively with students from minority and majority groups regarding important cultural differences among the students.  They must be able to use the cultural characteristics to foster appreciation of the differences and encourage cross-cultural communication.  Teachers must also be able to monitor their own cultural biases to make sure that they do not enter into the classroom.
Effective programs are integrated with other school programs and schools.  This feature is very important for the district, the school community and children in the dual language program.  The district must acknowledge and promote it as an enrichment program.  This not only legitimizes the program but also assures that the program is taken into consideration during discussions about standardized testing or curriculum changes.  If it operates in isolation, the program is vulnerable to budget cuts and changes which could be detrimental to it.  High visibility of a successful program instills district-wide pride in the program and also demonstrates to everyone the advantages of learning other languages and cultures (Cloud et al, 2000).

     In the school community, the dual language has to be an integral part of the school curriculum and school program.  Teachers must understand that the English progress of the students will not be as rapid as those who are receiving instruction solely in English. This is because academic language is the focus rather than just social language (Cummins, 2001).  School personnel may misinterpret the non-proficient language skills of the ELLs and feel that the children need more English.  In some cases, teachers increase the use of English around test time or switch solely to English for review before standardized tests (Cloud et al, 2000).  This sends the message that the other language is not as valuable.  It stops language development of the primary language of the Spanish language learners which signals that Spanish is not adequate for academic achievement.

     Effective programs aim for additive bilingualism.  In effective dual language programs, the goal of functional biliteracy must be kept in mind.  Functional biliteracy in language is the ability to use language accurately and appropriately in both oral and written forms in an academic setting as well as out of school (Cloud et al, 2000).  In dual language programs, the teachers must guard against switching to English as the content becomes more challenging and the language minority students become more proficient in English (Diaz-Rico, 2002).  If English is used for the more challenging content areas, then the primary language is devalued (Cummins, 2000).

     McGroarty notes that in order for the two languages to be developed appropriately, both must be accorded the status of exclusive medium of instruction for a variety of content areas as well as extra curricular activities.  The minority and majority languages must have equal status.  One way to assure language equity is to keep the primary language and English separated by either subject matter (Spanish for math, English for science, and so on), scheduling (one day in Spanish and the next in English), or by personnel (one teacher speaks only Spanish and the other speaks only English).  Separation of the two languages of instruction is a critical feature of successful dual language program design (Cloud et al, 2000; Collier, 1995; Diaz-Rico, 2002).  In Dual Language Instruction, the authors stress:
 
 

     Dual language instruction is an enrichment program with the ambitious goals of teaching biculturalism and literacy in two languages.   Looking at the critical features of a dual language program we can see that the factors all work together to form a cohesive, developmental, empowering bilingual program. The kinds of school reform noted by Nieto (1999) are an integral part of the program.  By giving equal treatment to both culture groups and languages, it is inclusive and anitbias.  By focusing on the strengths of the children and using their cultural background in instruction, it gives importance to the talents of all the children, not just the majority language students.  It has high expectations that all children will conform to the rigorous standards.  By including the families and the community as resources in the program, it validates the contributions of both language groups.

      In effective design for dual language instruction the critical features work together to form strong parameters for the program.  Are some of the “critical” features are more critical than others?  This paper examines one specific program in terms of one of the critical elements.  What remains to be determined is whether children who experience a DL curriculum absent the critical element, additive bilingualism, can be evaluated by the same standards as those children who were educated in a balanced dual language program.

Cloud, Genesee and Hamayan’s Critical features of Enriched Education*
1. Parent involvement is integral to program success.
2. Effective programs have high standards.
3. Strong leadership is critical for effective programs.
4.   Effective programs are developmental.
5. Effective instruction is student-centered.
6. Language instruction ie integrated with challenging academic instruction.
7. Teachers in effective programs are reflective.
8. Effective programs are integrated with other school programs and schools.
9. Effective programs aim for additive bilingualism.

* from Dual Language Instruction:  A handbook for Enriched Education

(The information for the following section was collected from classroom observations, interviews with the administrators, parents and teachers. References to specific teachers or classes are intentionally vague to protect privacy.)

     Three years ago, in an effort to bolster a failing school and create an appealing neighborhood school, a group of residents and public school supporters petitioned the school board for a special type of program which would attract families to the school.  The solution was a dual language program in Spanish and English.   Since there was almost no neighborhood support for the school, children were bused in.  The children bused to the school were mainly Hispanic and African-American who lived in apartment complexes out of walking distance.  When the program started the racial breakdown of the school was 53% Hispanic, 38% African-American and 9% other. Included in the ‘other’ were very active neighborhood families who wanted to promote their community school.  These parents were the ones who provided the moving force behind getting an enrichment program in the school.

     The concept of the program was to take 20 English-speaking kindergartners and 20 Spanish-speaking kindergartners and teach them in both languages.  This concept appealed to the Hispanics who wanted their children to maintain their home language, and to the neighborhood parents who wanted their children to learn Spanish.  The main goal for the neighborhood parents was to offer an enrichment program (CF 2) which would attract the children of the predominantly white families moving into the school community.
 The first year the ethnic breakdown of the kindergarten class was: 20 Hispanics, 18 African-American and 2 Whites.  The second year the incoming dual language kindergarten class consisted of 20 Hispanics, 14 African-Americans and 6 Whites.  By the 3rd year, the number of Whites in the incoming class increased to 12.  The overall racial breakdown of the school in the 3rd year of the program is 58% Hispanic, 29% African-American and 13% White.   The increase in the neighborhood Whites is seen almost exclusively in the dual language program.  The African-American students in the DL program decreased from 20 to 8 over the 3-year period.  The attraction of the DL program has increased the White neighborhood population which was the goal of the parents who instigated the program.

      One of the effects of the increase in the neighborhood families on the school is that their children are clustered in the DL classes and the other kindergarten classes are predominantly African-American and Hispanic.  The racial breakdown of the regular classes is more lopsided now that the Whites request and are placed in the DL program.  In this example, the program has the potential to create a school within a school which would go against the principles of multicultural school reform (Banks, Nieto, Cummins) and the critical feature (CF 8) of DL which stresses the integration of school programs into the school.

      The DL program has been very successful in terms of integrating families and family resources (CF 1).  Parents volunteer to work in the classrooms and accompany the students on field trips.  Minority parents as well as English-speaking parents have made cultural presentations in the classes.  The children are encouraged to ‘show and tell’ things about their ethnic backgrounds (CF 5).  Parents of both language groups participate in family reading nights at the school.  Many times Spanish-speaking mothers and English-speaking mothers work on projects together in the DL classrooms along with their children (CF 1).

      The teachers in the DL program have formed a strong team where they meet and design curriculum for the K-2 classes (CF 7).  Their goal is to integrate academic content areas into the language instruction.  They have designed a curriculum that aims to develop strong academic language in the children, in both Spanish and English (CF 6). They follow a 50/50 model with language arts and specials in English and math and science in Spanish (CF 6, 9) They also have strong support from the school administration in terms of resources and staff development (CF 3).
 
 

       My interest was to examine whether this specific program aimed for additive bilingualism (CF 9).  A developmental bilingual program should give equal respect and equal treatment to both languages as media of instruction.   I observed during the Spanish instructional time and interviewed the Spanish teachers about their attitudes towards Spanish instruction.

      In a full-day kindergarten program, the model is 50% English instruction (language arts) and 50% Spanish (math and science).  The “specials” of art, music, PE, and library are in English and fall during the English half of the day.  Computer lab is in the Spanish part of the day and the software used is in Spanish.  The children receive two hours of instructional time in Spanish and two hours in English.  The rest of the morning and afternoon sessions consist of snack-time, lunch, recess and free playtime.

      I chose to observe in the kindergarten classes on a regular basis to monitor the use of Spanish during the 50% of the day when the children receive math and science instruction.  For a DL program to be effective, it has to aim for additive bilingualism (CF 9).  By monitoring the amount of Spanish used in the Spanish part of the day, I could observe whether Spanish was given importance as the language of instruction.   Since the students began in September and I observed in April, I assumed that during the Spanish part of the day, Spanish would be used for social interaction as well as instruction close to 100% of the time.  I also wanted to observe social interactions to see  whether the two groups of children mixed.

Observation 1:  The first DL class consisted of 20 students, 10 Spanish speakers and 10 English speakers.  I observed during the Spanish instruction part of the day.  The teacher is bilingual, with Spanish as her first language and the assistant’s primary language is also Spanish.  The teacher greeted me in English and spoke to me in English.  The children came into the room, had snack and then free reading time before settling down to the lesson.  The children sat at tables with the native speakers in one area and the Spanish speakers in another.

The teacher spoke English to the English speaking children and Spanish to the Spanish speakers.  The assistant did the same.  The students used predominantly English from my observations.  The charted results appear below in Table 1. (DL) Spanish/English utterances during a 20 minute observation:
Time 10:30 10:32 10:34 10:36 10:38 10:40 10:42 10:44 10:46   10:48
Teacher EE EEE SSSEEEE SSSS SSSEEEE SSSSSSEE SESSSSESEEEE SSEEEEEE SSEEEEEE SSSEEES
Assistant    SSEESS EESS  S
Students EEEE  EEEEEESS EEEEESS EEEEE EEEEESEE EEEEES EEEESSEE EEEESSEEE SSSEEE
table did not convey

During the observation, the teacher gave instructions in Spanish and then in English.  Even the song that they eagerly sang in Spanish was eventually sung in English.  The children responded immediately to songs in Spanish and they sang along with tapes as they had their snack.  When the teacher started with the instruction she gave directions in Spanish and then in English.  She also answered questions in English.

  Observation 2:  The second observation was also in the Spanish part of the day.  The language breakdown is 10 English speakers and 10 Spanish speakers.  The teacher and assistant are the same as those observed in the first session, but the children are different.  The activities in this class were very similar to those in the first observation.  The children entered from lunch, had a short playtime and then settled down to the teacher-directed lesson.
Here is observed language use from Class 2 (DL) S/E utterances during 20 minutes.
Time 12:28 12:30 12:32 12:34 12:36 12:38 12:40 12:42 12:44 12:46
Teacher EESS SSE ESSEE EEE SSS SEE ESS EEEES SSSSEE ESSE
Assistant  SE SEE  S  SSESES  SSEE SEEE
Students  SEEE EEEE EEEEE SSS EEE EESSSE  SSSSEE EEEE

     In this class, the teacher seemed very comfortable teaching in English and seemed to use English in both instruction and in social language with the English-speaking students.  The Spanish-speaking students addressed the teacher in Spanish and she answered them in Spanish most of the time.  The assistant used English with the English speaking students and Spanish with the Hispanics.  The assistant used Spanish with the teacher.

     When we look at the dynamics of the use of Spanish in the class, we see that as the teacher used Spanish, the students did also.  But what we also see is that the percentage of Spanish used during the 20-minute observation is only 35.76%.  And, in the second observation the teacher, assistant and students used Spanish only 40% of the time.  When we realize that in the Spanish section of the day, the language is used only 35% of the time and that the children respond in the language they are spoken to, we see that in this class, Spanish is not used as the primary language of instruction.

      When I asked the teacher why she used so much English, her response correlated with the Cloud observation (p. 20) that when the teachers had to make sure that the students understood the content, the temptation was to use the native language of the student.  The teacher switched to English when content was taught.  In a follow up question to the first and second grade teachers on the same subject, they both confirmed that even though math instruction took place in the Spanish part of the day, they made sure that the concept was taught in English.   Then they would practice in Spanish.  Their rationale was that eventually the children would be tested in English.

      Instruction was taking place in English during the Spanish part of the day in order to make sure that the English speakers learned the content.  In terms of the critical features of the DL program and in terms of the goals of multicultural education reform, using the dominant language for content devalued not only the purpose of the DL program but also the use of Spanish as the language of instruction.

     Even though the design followed most of the critical elements, by not using Spanish as a language of instruction with equal importance as English, this is not a program which aims for additive bilingualism.  Without this feature, the students who finish four years in this program cannot be evaluated on the same basis as those students who have had academic instruction in two languages.

     This study is not complete.  Academic achievement and literacy levels have not been measured.  This study concentrated on program design and raised the question whether children in a dual language class can be expected to progress, in the way cited in the Collier research, if they have not had strong academic instruction in Spanish.

 Before the outcomes of specific dual language classes can be analyzed, the program must be examined in terms of its design.  The critical features of a successful dual language program as explained by Cloud, Genesee and Hamayan in their Handbook of Dual Language Instruction (2000) are summarized by Collier when she sets out in Banks (2003) her five elements for successful DL program design:
 

      As with Nieto, Banks and Cummins, Collier includes the sociocultural aspects of community involvement and parent support in program design.   She also incorporates high academic standards and high expectations for all.  Even though Collier finds all five elements crucial to the design of a successful program, the first and third elements deal with the integration of the two languages for academic instruction.

      What happens when those two elements are not fully implemented or not seen to be important?  Can a program be called Dual Language Immersion if Spanish is not used on an equal basis with English as a language of instruction?  If the children are not immersed in Spanish, but rather hear it incidentally in greetings and social language, does it comply with the design of a successful program?  If the students receive social content in one language and academic content in another, can they be evaluated in the same manner as students in a dual language program that follows the critical features set out by Cloud, Genesee and Hamayan?  These are questions that need to be looked at seriously when evaluating the design of DL instruction.

     Additive bilingualism is one of the important elements in dual language.  Spanish and English must both be accepted and used as media of instruction (Cloud et al, Collier, Cummins, Diaz-Rico).  Children must be challenged to learn in both languages.  As soon as Spanish is used as the social language and English as the academic language then dominance of English sends a strong message of the inadequacy of Spanish as a language of instruction. Teachers in DL programs must be made to understand that teaching content in the minority language on a consistent and equal basis with English will build a platform of support for transferring language skills.  Teaching mainly in the dominant language will undermine the majority students’ motivation to learn the minority language, which will reduce the overall effectiveness of the dual language program.  The language as well as the minority culture has to be given equal status in order to have language equity.

     The dual language program mentioned above is young.  The children have not been in it the requisite four years to show that the Spanish speakers have been able to transfer home language skills to English learning.  After observing in the DL classes, I question whether the test results, when the students have been in the program for four years, will show that the children are able to perform well with academic English, and whether the English speakers can perform at all in Spanish.   By switching to English rather than explaining concepts in Spanish, the English language learners are not developing their home language skills.  By using English more than 50% during the Spanish part of the day, Spanish is not being treated with respect or equity.

     Integration of the two languages is only one of the elements of successful DL design.  The analysis of this DL program is not complete.  I have examined the classes in terms of only one of the critical features.  This program should be analyzed in terms of compliance with each of the other features.  Before judging whether children learn better in DL instruction, the design and the reality of the DL program must be assessed to assure that the critical features of successful DL instruction are followed.  Very important in not only program design but in actuality is whether the two languages are treated in a way which encourages bilingualism.  If Spanish is not used as a language of instruction during the Spanish part of the day then we have to evaluate the outcomes of the program as if it were a transitional bilingual program or mainstreaming with social Spanish thrown in, and not an enriched, two-way, developmental, bilingual program.  Learning academic material in two languages might be only one of the critical features of dual language design, but it is not only critical but crucial.
 
 

Abella, R. Urrutia, J, Shneyderman, A. (2003, February) An Examination of the validity of English language achievement test scores in a LEP student Population.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of NABE, New Orleans, LA.  Retrieved Feb. 22, 2003 from
 http://www.miami.com/mianiherald/news/5066849.htm

Alanis, I. (2000) A Texas two-way bilingual program:  Its effects on linguistic and academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24,3. Retrieved  May 28, 2002 from:
 http://brj.asu.edu/v243/articles/art2.html#intro
Arce, J. (1998). Cultural hegemony:  The politics of bilingual education. Multicultural Education, 6, 2, 10-16.

Baker, K. & Rossell, C.H. (1996) Bilingual education in Massachusetts:  The emperor has
 No clothes.  Boston: Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research.

Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. (2003).  Multicultural Education:  Issues & perspectives.  NY:  Wiley/Jossey-Bass.

Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language  (3rd ed.) Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000).  Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Collier, V. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students: Understanding second language acquisition for school. Elizabeth, NJ: New Jersey Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages-Bilingual Education.

Collier, V. & Thomas, W. (2002). A National study of school effectiveness for language minority students; long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.  Retrieved June 17, 2002 from

       http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1/1es.html
 

Crawford, J. (1999) Language Legislation in the USA. Retrieved June 17, 2002 from

       http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwCrawford1999/langleg.htm
 

Cummins, J. (2001).  Language, Power and Pedagogy. Retrieved  April 15, 2002 from

           http://www.iteachilearn.com/cumming/lpp.html

Cummins, J. (2001).  Empowering minority students:  A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review 71, No. 4 p. 649-675.

Diaz-Rico, L.T. & Weed, K.Z. (2002).  The crosscultural, language and academic development handbook, A complete K-12 reference guide.  Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gandara, P. (2002), In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the Post-227 era.  Bilingual Research Journal 24 (1&2) Retrieved Oct. 1, 2002 from
           http://brj.asu.edu/v2412/articles/ar2.html

Genesee, F. (1987).  Learning through two languages:  Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Genesse, F. ed. (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. (Educational Practice Report #1)  Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence/Center for Applied Linguistics. Washington, DC.

Greene, J. (1998, March 2). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance.  Retrieved June 17, 2002 from
       http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jCrawford,1999/greene.html
 

Hodgkinson, H. (2001). Educational Demographics: What teachers should know.    Educational Leadership, 58(4).  Retrieved on May 24, 2002 from

       http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/0012/hodgkinson.html
 

Kozol, J. (1991).  Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Harper Perennial.

Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education.  Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.

Krashen, S. (1997) Why Bilingual Education?  (Report No. BBB00899) Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC. (ERIC No. ED439186)
 

Krashen, S. (1999) Bilingual education: Arguments for and (bogus) arguments against. Paper presented at the Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and  Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. May 1999.

Krashen, S. (n.d.) The dropout argument.  Retrieved June 17, 2002 from the Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research Web site:

       http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~cmmr/krashen_dropouts.html

McGroarty, M. (2001).  Bilingual approaches to language learning. In Celce-Murcia (Ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language 3rd edition. Heinle & Heinle, Boston.

Nieto, S. (1999).  The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S. (2000).  Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Office of Civil Rights. (2001).  Testing guide: Legal Principles.  Retrieved June 12, 2002 from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/testing/chapter2.html#167

Ovando, C. (2003) Language diversity and education. In Banks & Banks. Multicultural education:  Issues & perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. NY.

Spangenberg-Urbschat, K.,  & Pritchard, R. (Eds.) (1994).  Kids come in all languages:  Reading instruction for ESL students.  Newark, DE: International Reading  Association.

Tharpe, R. (1997).  From at-risk to excellence:  Research, theory and principles  for practice. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence Retrieved February 19, 2002 from

       http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/research/rr1/htm
 

Thomas, W. & Collier, V. 1998.  School effectiveness for language minority students.  Alexandria, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Valdes, G. (2001) Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American  schools.  New York:  Teachers College Press.
 
 
 

Return to top

Return to EDUC 894