Abstract

Introduction

Academic Language
Proficiency

Oppportunities to Aquire
Academic Spanish Language
Proficiency

Bilingual Education Teacher Training

Spanish Language Competency Testing

Sustained Native Language Instruction

Concluding Remarks

Notes

References

SPANISH ACADEMIC LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY:
THE CASE OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN THE U.S.

Abstract

| Return to top |
 
 

Empirical evidence has been forthcoming that supports the sustained use of native language instruction for Spanish language origin children in the United States. This paper argues that prospective bilingual education teachers are not generally afforded the type of Spanish language development opportunities needed to provide sustained native language instruction characterizing the most effective program models. Rather, the academic Spanish language development opportunities they do receive are aimed primarily at serving the needs of early-exit transitional bilingual education programs, the most common and least effective type of bilingual program in the US.

| Return to top |
 
 

        This paper addresses a sore spot in bilingual education, that is, a topic everyone acknowledges is in need of attention, but few choose to address. It is a fact of bilingual education life that there is a pressing demand for more bilingual education teachers nationwide (Díaz-Rico, Lynne, & Smith, 1994; Macías, 1988). However, rarely do we stop to question how it is possible to meet this growing demand for teachers that are proficient in academic Spanish when our society so openly discourages the development of bilingualism. Clearly, the United States constitutes a subtractive oriented and often times linguicist society (Skutnabb Kangas, 1988). As evidence, examine the growth of English Only legislation across the country and the recent political travesty in California regarding bilingual education. 

        The dilemma we face concerns a series of studies that have been conducted this decade (Christian et.al., 1997; Greene, 1998; Lindholm, 1993; Ramírez, et al., 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997)¹that support the effectiveness of native language instruction. Thomas and Collier (1997) report that language minority students in dual-language immersion or two-way bilingual programs appear to most readily close the academic gap between themselves and the monolingual English-speaking children. It is the promise of sustained native language instruction (i.e., the use of the native language for five to seven years across the curriculum) that beckons the need for us to examine the linguistic abilities of bilingual education teachers. 

        Interestingly, the teachers in the dual-language programs generally have achieved a native or near native like proficiency²in the target language (Christian et al., 1997;Met & Lorenz, 1997; Molina, 1994). The reality is that bilingual education teachers with this level of academic Spanish language proficiency represent a minority of the teaching force (Figueroa & García, 1994; Wagonner & O'Malley, 1984). The promise lies in that there is ample evidence to support the sustained use of the native language and positive student outcomes. No causal implications should be inferred. Native or near native teacher language proficiency is simply set forth as one of the central programmatic conditions that is necessary to generate the patterns of academic achievement reported in the studies cited above. 

        The central question is, what has been the nature of the Spanish language development opportunities bilingual education teachers have had in order to serve as academic Spanish language role models? It stands to reason that if bilingual education teachers have been shortchanged in terms of Spanish language development experiences, then they are not being adequately prepared to model and teach using the Spanish language across the curriculum. The consequences may be severe for many of the school-age youth that need and or desire Spanish language instruction. 

        The purpose of this essay is to examine the opportunities bilingual education teachers are given to develop their academic Spanish language ability as these experiences relate to various educational language policies and practices common to the United States. First, however, a clearer understanding of what is meant by academic language proficiency is warranted. 

| Return to top |
 
 

        The language of schooling or academic language is a notion that has been around for some time (see Cazden, John & Hymes,1972; Wilkinson, 1982). In language minority education circles a number of researchers have set forth different dimensions of academic language proficiency. Each perspective on academic language proficiency inadvertently falls short of being all encompassing. However, collectively they provide deeper insight into the complexity of this construct. 

        Perhaps one of the earliest and most popularized paradigms for this construct was set forth by Cummins (1980) as he introduced the notion of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). Cummins (1984), under intense criticism (see Rivera, 1984), later reformulated this paradigm as consisting of two intersecting continuums that characterize academic language use: the degree of cognitive demand and the degree of contextualization. Basically, Cummins posits that each time language is used in a classroom setting a certain degree of cognitive demand is placed on the learner. These uses or language tasks vary in the degree of cognitive demand required of the learner. For example, copying a list of vocabulary words is not as cognitively demanding as composing a paragraph. Similarly, each language task is characterized by a degree of contextualization that can vary depending on how the task is presented to the learner. That is, reading about metamorphosis in a science text is not as contextualized as directly observing the actual transformation of butterflies or frogs. 

        These two basic distinctions regarding academic language are important. What is perhaps even more critical to understanding academic language proficiency is that, "In general, the more context-reduced and cognitively demanding the language task, the more it will be related to achievement" (Cummins, 1984, p. 15). 

        Solomon and Rhodes (1995) conceptualize academic language as a stylistic register. The authors highlight how language is used in schooling at the level of spoken or written discourse as opposed to the level of a sentence. These researchers make clear that the learner must not only master the academic language that may be explicitly part of the curriculum (e.g., the structure of a story, the parts of a friendly letter) or a subject area (e.g., the specialized uses of prepositions in mathematics). They must also manage the structured discursive exchanges between student and teacher. According to these researchers, ". . . the teachers shape the specific styles of language they think are required of the students for the academic tasks at hand" (p. 8). The interesting point is that these styles may not be made explicit to the learner by the teacher but still contribute to student academic achievement. 

        The language model developed by Bachman (1990) is useful in more fully understanding how linguistically intricate academic language and discourse can be. Based on this model of communicative language ability, one can see that academic language would entail both an organizational and pragmatic component; organizational competence consists of grammatical and textual competence; pragmatic competence consists of illocutionary and sociolinguistic competence. Each of these four components is further divided into yet smaller linguistic components. For example, textual competence consists of cohesive markers (e.g., first, then, finally) and rhetorical organization (e.g., conversation, academic lecture). 

        Academic language use requires knowledge of grammatical structures (e.g., passive voice) commonly used in written expository texts (e.g., a science passage on the respiratory system) that may also require knowledge of the cohesive markers (e.g., In sum) embedded within the passage. The learner is also expected to be able to manage shades of directness of speech acts (e.g., Why don't you reread the passage?) commonly used by teachers. Further, academic language, like any other register of language, depends on using and comprehending sociocultural references (e.g., recycling, acid rain) that the learner must come to manage. In short, Bachman's model offers further insight into the complexities of academic language. 

Oller (1989) offers yet another dimension of language that must be accounted for in conceptualizing academic language, the use and comprehension of gesture in communication. One component of the theoretical model of language proficiency posited by Oller is the kinesic semiotic capacity. A learner must come to understand how a particular posture (e.g., finger pressed up against one's head when they are "thinking"), gaze (e.g., a stern "look"), or hand movement (e.g., a "thumbs up" signal) lend themselves to subtly shaping the meaning of an utterance within a broader academic discourse. 

        The recent work of Chamot and O'Malley (1994) regarding cognitive academic language proficiency also helps place this construct into perspective. Their work is especially useful in that it makes educators aware of the fact that each subject matter area is characterized by unique concepts, linguistic features and the saliency of particular language functions (e.g., describing, comparing, synthesizing). For example, managing the language of social studies requires the learner to be able to internalize abstract concepts (e.g., democracy) presented within long sentences using multiple embedded clauses and then use language to express their point of view on the matter. 

        One further observation should be made regarding academic language. It develops gradually over time. Ovando and Collier (1998) maintain that the development of academic language is a continuous process throughout a student's schooling" (p. 93). Theoretically, it could begin at birth as parents begin to verbally interact with the newborn and continue well into adulthood as a person attends college and later becomes a teacher or other professional. For our purposes, let us assume that the development of academic language generally spans a twelve to thirteen year period (i.e., from Kindergarten to grade 12). 

        In sum, academic language proficiency is more than mere lexical representations associated with different aspects of the curriculum. It is an internalization and automatization of dealing with cognitively complex decontextualized language at the level of discourse. This discourse is subject to pragmatic conventions, embellished with kinesic nuances, specific subject area characteristics, and sociocultural references. Academic language, in any language, requires time to develop and theoretically has no finite boundaries. In light of this brief description of academic language proficiency, one must examine the nature of the opportunities prospective bilingual education teachers are afforded to develop their ability to use this register of language.

| Return to top |
 
 

        It stands to reason that the acquisition and development of academic language proficiency is contingent upon being exposed to such language and having the social motivation to internalize its structure (Damico & Oller, 1991). Evidence suggests that the Spanish language origin community has not had ample access to academic Spanish language texts, oral or written, nor have been socially motivated to acquire this register. Educational language politics and policies have contributed to a fairly well established pattern of language shift, language loss and academic underachievement among the Spanish language origin community. 

        The trend that is perhaps most devastating to the maintenance and development of Spanish-English bilingualism concerns the decision made by parents to hedge or not transmit the Spanish language to their infants and toddlers prior to schooling (Wong Fillmore, 1991). These early years in human development are unquestionably critical to first language development, second language acquisition and the acquisition of "funds of knowledge" (Moll, 1992) in general. However, many of these parents have good reasons (e.g., their own negative educational, social and employment experiences) for deciding to withhold the Spanish language from their children or to hedge in its transmission. 

        Based on analyses of U.S. Census data, Hernández-Chávez (1996) maintains that the percentage of Chicano youth that reported using Spanish declined from 1980 to 1990. He also reported that the more Spanish one speaks, the fewer years of schooling one has completed and, not surprisingly, the smaller the average personal income. In short, transmitting Spanish from one generation to the next is not generally viewed as a worthwhile social endeavor in the context of the United States. That is, adult speakers of the language generally have little socially defined motivation to share their native language with the younger generation. Schooling or becoming educated and economic advancement have little to do with the maintenance of Spanish in U.S. society. 

        Regarding schooling, over the last twenty-five years, bilingual education has been the primary public vehicle for transmitting Spanish academic language proficiency. Unfortunately, there have been too few opportunities offered through the K-12 educational system in this country to promote the maintenance and development of Spanish among school-age children. In a study conducted by Fleischman & Hopstock (1993) it was reported that only 17% of the schools serving language minority students provided a significant degree of primary language instruction. 

August & Hakuta (1997) suggest that the majority of bilingual education programs in the United States are transitional and the acquisition of English academic language proficiency is the primary goal of these programs. These authors also provide empirical evidence of the transition from native language use to English language use within one school year even within a bilingual program. They state, 

The predominance of the transitional bilingual education model is underscored by one longitudinal analysis reported in Prospects (Exhibit 4.3), reporting data for the third grade cohort from the beginning to the end of the year. At the beginning of the year, 71% of classroom teachers reported teaching primarily in the native language and 9% primarily in English. But by the end of the year, 14% reported teaching primarily in the native language and 40% primarily in English (another 37% reported that the language use varied from student to student). (p. 20-21)

Further, August and Hakuta report that only 10% of teachers serving English language learners are certified in bilingual education. Consequently, mere availability of bilingual education teachers fluent in the Spanish language presents a serious problem for many children being served by bilingual programs. 

        In a study conducted by Ramírez, Yuen, and Ramey (1991) the team of researchers reported that whether the limited English proficient child was in a native language or English only program, the students did not produce much language and when they did it usually took the form of simple information recall statements. The important implication of this study is that the learners were not afforded ample opportunities to engage in complex language use in either language. 

        Even within elementary school contexts explicitly given over to using, maintaining and developing Spanish-English bilingualism, sociocultural forces dilute the schools efforts. In a two year study of twenty-five bilingual education maintenance programs located in the Southwest, Escamilla (1992) reported that in some classrooms English was reserved for academic instruction; Spanish was used primarily for direction giving and discipline. 

        A word is in order regarding opportunities for prospective bilingual education teachers to develop academic Spanish language proficiency at the middle school and secondary school level. 

\McCollum (1994) describes the status of Spanish and English within a two-way bilingual program at the middle school level. Bear in mind that one of the distinguishing features of this program type is the equal status of both languages. She states, "Instead of fostering bilingualism and biliteracy in Spanish and English, the two-way program studied unwittingly devalued the minority language and taught students that English was the language of power" (p. 11). Consider the evidence set forth by McCollum regarding the valued language of achievement testing: 

        Bilingual education programs at the secondary level are virtually non-existent in the United States. Ovando and Collier (1998, p. 223) size up the situation as follows: 

        This middle and secondary school scenario can best be explained by the role that has been assigned to bilingual education in this country, to transition the Spanish-speaking child into English during the primary years. In the eyes of the mainstream, there is simply no societal need to systematically create middle and high school bilingual programs that would allow this community to continue developing academic language skills in Spanish and English. This may help explain why bilingual education programs at the elementary level struggle so to give equal status to the Spanish language. That is, the worth of these programs is almost always measured using an English language academic achievement yardstick. 

        This K-12 situation has created a language learning paradigm for bilingual education teachers that makes the acquisition of academic Spanish ad hoc, illogical and generally incomplete. Bear in mind that the prospective bilingual education teacher is most likely to be female and a member of the same Latino community with the above noted trends as opposed to being a member of the Anglo community or from some other Spanish-speaking country³(American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1994). Consequently, prospective bilingual education teachers have academic language experiences much like the Spanish language origin community in general. 

        For these reasons, the majority of prospective bilingual education teachers do not arrive to their respective teacher training institutions with twelve or more years of experience with the academic register of Spanish. The inequity is clear. Individuals pursuing a teaching career in mainstream (English) education do bring with them twelve or more years of academic language experience in English. These individuals will continue to build on their previously acquired linguistic skills. In contrast, many prospective bilingual education teachers may lack this prior foundational and requisite academic language experience. 

| Return to top |
 
 

        Generally, the prospective bilingual education teacher has managed to develop an oral ability in the Spanish language but one that better serves language domains (e.g., home, church, entertainment) other than schooling and academics. This is not a criticism of their abilities but simply the sociolinguistic outcome of an educational system that values and perpetuates only English monolingualism. In fact, it is sociolinguistically remarkable that there is a subgroup of Latinos in the United States who do manage to hold on to whatever Spanish language abilities they bring with them to universities and colleges to pursue a career in bilingual education. 

        While the Spanish academic language needs of prospective bilingual education teachers are considerable, very little research has ever been conducted on the effectiveness of bilingual education teacher training practices (August & Hakuta, 1997; Grant, 1992). In terms of experiences designed to develop the academic Spanish language proficiency of bilingual education teachers, we know very little. 

        Traditionally, a portion of the bilingual education course work is offered in Spanish and pre-service teachers are also required to take a number of Spanish language courses in the Spanish Language Department. Is this long-standing approach effective? There is a chain of evidence that suggests that radical changes are needed in this respect. 

Calderón and Díaz (1993) state, 

        What these authors allude to is that university professors must act as academic Spanish language models for prospective bilingual education teachers in much the same way the bilingual education teacher should for the child enrolled in a bilingual program. One should bear in mind that bilingual education professors were also most likely to have been schooled entirely in the United States with little or no formal instruction in academic Spanish. Further, any cursory review of academic journals and books linked to bilingual education would readily reveal the overwhelming preference for higher education faculty to publish in English. The linguistic consequences this has for prospective bilingual education teachers should be obvious: little or no contact with academic texts that could further their academic proficiency in the language. Ada (1976) provides some related food for thought: 

Wink and Flores (1992), in describing the components of an effective bilingual education induction program for first year teachers, indicate: 

        These authors raise a critical empirical question, the how long question raised about the number of years English language learners need to develop grade level academic language abilities. To this author's knowledge no empirical studies have been conducted to explore the number of years prospective bilingual education teachers need to develop deep academic Spanish language proficiency. Wink and Flores also make clear that first year bilingual education teachers are not generally afforded the kinds of Spanish language development experiences during their higher education training that effectively prepare them to meet the linguistic demands of a bilingual setting. 

        Two larger scale studies support this observation. Waggoner and O'Malley (1984) reported that . . . approximately four out of five teachers using a non-English language in instruction during 1980-81 did not have the language skills or basic professional preparation to do so (p. 25). Nearly a decade later, a report published in 1993 by the U.S. Department of Education indicates the same trend, the majority of bilingual education teachers serving Spanish-speaking students are not proficient in Spanish (Figueroa & García, 1994). 

        Echoing these concerns, in Texas, a Summit for Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language Programs (Ríos and Solís, 1997) was recently held to identify program priorities across the state. Among the several priorities cited was the repeated need for in-service opportunities for practicing bilingual education teachers to further develop their academic Spanish language skills. 

        In sum, it is unrealistic to expect bilingual education teacher training efforts to make up the lost linguistic ground of prospective bilingual education teachers from the Latino community. There are too few meaningful opportunities for prospective bilingual education teachers to develop the math, science and social studies registers in Spanish prior to enrolling in a bilingual education teacher training program. On the other hand, these bilingual education teacher training efforts are adequately designed to serve the main interest of bilingual education in the United States, to transition the child to English as soon as possible. The role of these teacher training programs nearly completes the structure of a language development system or paradigm that falls seriously short of the development of a strong version of Spanish-English bilingualism for bilingual education teachers and the Spanish-speaking community in turn. 

| Return to top |
 
 

        It is interesting to note that approximately 17 of the state departments of education in the United States have implemented a Spanish language proficiency testing policy for prospective bilingual education teachers (Grant, 1995). The policy is essentially upheld through the administration of a test which is purportedly designed to determine whether or not a bilingual education teacher is proficient enough in the Spanish language to teach in a bilingual education program classroom⁴. The purpose of such a policy should help ensure that a Spanish-speaking child is likely to receive meaningful instruction. This assurance, however, is contingent upon the degree of validity of the tests used to uphold this kind of policy. The critical questions are, how proficient does a bilingual education teacher need to be in Spanish in order to fulfill their teaching obligations and does the test identify those who can fulfill these obligations from those who cannot? 

        A brief examination of any one of the Spanish language proficiency tests used in the Southwest to determine whether or not a prospective bilingual education teacher is proficient enough in the Spanish language reveals a need to reconsider the measures's validity for such high-stakes testing purposes. 

        Consider, for example, that in each state, the development of the tests was preceded by the implementation of bilingual programs in public schools and bilingual education teacher training programs at colleges and universities. There is ample evidence to argue that in both cases the orientation of both public schooling and teacher training in bilingual education is to transition the Spanish-speaking child into English as soon as possible. Each of these tests was developed within an educational context driven primarily by transitional bilingual education. Consequently, the expert judgment, field observations, language standards, and scoring criteria underlying the development of these tests cannot help but be skewed accordingly. 

        In Texas, for example, the prospective bilingual education teacher only needs to pass the Texas Oral Proficiency Test (TOPT) to demonstrate oral proficiency in Spanish. Spanish language literacy is not deemed as a necessary dimension of the teacher's bilingual proficiency. According to Stansfield and Kenyon (1991), the test used in Texas was developed based strictly on the professional judgment of 240 teachers in the field of bilingual education through their responses to a job relatedness survey. The vast majority of these teachers reported teaching at the early childhood and early elementary grades, Grades 1-3. Consequently, the use of oral Spanish is focused on the early grades, at about the point when Spanish-speaking children are expected to be ready to transition to all English instruction. No direct field observations were conducted to develop the job-related survey; it was generated by the staff at the Center for Applied Linguistics. There is no direct link to the different content areas on this test. 

        In New Mexico a different scenario unfolds but it is not without its shortcomings. Valdés (1989) indicates that the test, the Four Skills Exam, is firmly established and widely accepted as the test that needs to be passed by bilingual education teachers in New Mexico.Guerrero (1994), on the other hand, concludes that the Spanish language test used in New Mexico is seriously lacking unified validity (Messick, 1989) and has essentially outlived its usefulness. 

        The New Mexico test, like the Texas measure, was developed within the context of elementary bilingual education teachers delivering instruction up to about grade four (Valdés, 1989). On the other hand, it has also been used to endorse bilingual education teachers at the secondary level. While the test does measure speaking, listening, reading and writing, there is also a weak link to the different content areas across the four language skills. Further, a prospective bilingual education teacher can pass the written portion of the test with up to twenty errors. Lastly, Guerrero was unable to identify a Technical or Scoring Manual for this test used since 1981. The New Mexico State Department of Education is presently phasing in a newly developed test. 

        Norfleet (1994) conducted a thorough analysis of the Arizona Classroom Teacher Spanish Proficiency Exam (ACTSPE) and concluded that this test still served its purpose though major revisions are essential. As in Texas and New Mexico, this test was designed for the elementary bilingual education teacher. However, it is also used with teachers at the secondary level. While there is an attempt to measure the test-taker's ability to use Spanish across the curriculum and four language skills, the areas of math and science are not meaningfully addressed. Lastly, the oral portion of the exam is given more weight than the written portion in scoring the exam that indicates a lesser need for the bilingual educators in this state to be literate in the Spanish language. 

        In California a newly developed Spanish proficiency test has been put into use as part of the Bilingual California Cross-Cultural, Language and Academic Development (BCLAD) credentialing program. The test measures all four language skills areas and makes an effort to create contexts that address different content areas (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1993). Because the test is relatively new, little is known about its validity. To this author's knowledge, no external reviews of the test have been published. While the Spanish language component of BCLAD does appear promising, it too is designed exclusively for the elementary grades. 

        Overall, oral proficiency in Spanish is the main concern of the tests used in at least three of the four Southwestern states. Further, to the exception of the California measure, the remaining tests do not adequately cover the prospective bilingual education teacher's abilities to use the Spanish language in each of the principal content areas (i.e., language arts, math, science and social studies). The inherent message is that bilingual education teachers are not expected to be able to move children into Spanish literacy or to develop content area knowledge through the use of the Spanish language at later elementary grade levels and much less into the secondary grade level. 

        The use of these three tests create an illusion among the profession that the bilingual education teacher who can pass such a test is in fact proficient in the academic register of the Spanish language. This author would agree, but only within the context of a sociolinguistic milieu that is subtractive and embraces primarily transitional bilingual education. On the other hand, and as described in the previous section of this essay, practicing bilingual education teachers continue to need opportunities to develop their academic Spanish language abilities. How can this be assuming that they have taken and passed their required Spanish language proficiency test? 

        Clearly, the profession would like to uphold a high standard in terms of bilingual education teacher academic language proficiency as is evidenced by the position taken by the National Association for Bilingual Education (1992): 

On the other hand, NABE's standard is unrealistic on any large scale since the present infrastructure for developing Spanish academic language proficiency cannot support the development of high levels of proficiency in the language. Further, given the great demand for and short supply of bilingual education teachers, too high of a standard may be met by resistance on the part of teacher training institutions and local schools pressed desperately for bilingual education teachers. In short, the social consequences of the existing Spanish language testing policy for the bilingual education community are troublesome upon a closer examination.

| Return to top |
 
 

        In a recent longitudinal study Thomas and Collier (1997) have reported that the educational model that appears to generate the most positive academic outcomes for language minority students are those referred to as two-way or dual-language immersion bilingual education programs. Briefly, two of the distinguishing features of this program model are: (1) the degree to which the native language is used (typically from 5 to 7 years) separately across the curriculum for no less than half of the school day, and (2) the inclusion of native speakers of English. Well implemented programs of this type have been found to allow the language minority student to catch up to grade level in English, while maintaining skills in the native language, more quickly than is evidenced through the use of other program models such as transitional bilingual education or English as a second language. 

        Note that two-way immersion programs are the least common models of bilingual education in the United States (August & Hakuta, 1997). Of the 182 schools offering this type of program, 74 are in the Southwest and the majority of such programs are designed to serve the Spanish-speaking. 58 of the 74 programs in the Southwest, however, are in California alone (Christian et al., 1997). 

        The sustained use of the native language across the curriculum clearly contributes; along with other program components—to the positive student outcomes reported in the Thomas and Collier longitudinal study. While specific and empirically generated teacher language profiles have not been made available, there is growing evidence that suggests that bilingual teachers in two-way programs must possess native or near native like proficiency in the non-English language. 

        Christian et al. (1997) set forth three profiles of two-way immersion programs. At one school site, four teachers responsible for Spanish language instruction were native speakers of the language. The two remaining teachers had considerable experience living in a Spanish-speaking country. At a second site, some teachers were native speakers of Spanish and had also been educated in the language. The other teachers at this site were bilinguals since childhood or learned Spanish as adults. At the third site, to the exception of two school staff members, 40 teachers were bilingual. Many of the teachers were native speakers, while others either lived in a Spanish-speaking country or were raised bilingually. What is particularly striking about these general language profiles is that the majority of these teachers appear to have developed their academic Spanish language proficiency outside of the United States or beginning at an early age within the United States. 

        Met and Lorenz (1997), in discussing the language criteria for selecting an immersion program teacher, state, 

Molina (1994), in describing considerations for the successful implementation of a two-way program, also highlights the need for the teachers to have native or native-like ability in both languages. 

        In a similar vein, Baetens Beardsmore (1995) makes clear the standard of language proficiency required to teach in European models of bilingual education. The author states, 

        While data are limited, it is interesting to note the importance that is placed on the level of non-English language proficiency needed by teachers to deliver instruction in two-way bilingual programs. The presence of this critical program feature has apparently become less of a priority for the most prevalent types of bilingual education programs, early-exit transitional bilingual education programs. 

        Two-way immersion programs, and more specifically sustained native language instruction, are by no means the sole solution to the educational plight of the community in question⁵. However, under present U.S. policies and practices, this type of bilingual education program model appears promising in alleviating the pattern of underachievement that unfortunately characterizes too large a percentage of the Spanish-speaking community. 

        Relevant to the main purpose of this paper, it is unreasonable to expect prospective bilingual education teachers to achieve native or even near native academic Spanish language proficiency unless it begins at an early age and continues for a formidable part of their academic career. Further, careful examination of the Spanish language skills of effective teachers in these programs may also provide sorely needed insight to help guide the development of additive oriented Spanish language proficiency experiences at teacher training institutions and state or district mandated teacher proficiency tests. 

        In sum, two-way bilingual programs represent a long-term strategy to begin to circumvent the linguistic cycle in which prospective bilingual education teachers have found themselves⁶. Further, there are certainly many more communities in the Southwest, especially along the U.S.-Mexico border region, that could benefit from such programs. However, the Spanish language origin community cannot depend in any large measure on native speakers of Spanish from other countries (or other individuals who have taken it upon themselves to live for an extended period of time in a Spanish-speaking country) to teach their children well and to assist in maintaining and developing a tradition of robust bilingualism. 

| Return to top |
 
 

        The purpose of this article has been to examine key educational policies and practices that limit the opportunities bilingual education teachers have in achieving teacher-like academic language proficiency in Spanish. Undoubtedly, the situation is complex and in need of immediate attention and action by a variety of stakeholders. 

        The solution is not just about raising the standards of academic Spanish language proficiency for bilingual education teachers. Under the present circumstances, raising the bar on language proficiency tests would simply punish these teachers. Neither is the solution just in the hands of teacher training institutions. Nonetheless, there is certainly a tremendous amount of opportunity to develop academic Spanish language proficiency that is squandered by these institutions. Presently, schools, and the bilingual programs they house, are in no better position to circumvent this linguistic cycle; they are a driving force behind it. We simply cannot continue to hope that by not using Spanish as the medium of instruction students will maintain and develop their proficiency in the language and later become effective bilingual education teachers. On the other hand, schools could use the Spanish language more effectively - if they chose to. 

        I realize that the United States is a linguicist society and that the hope for any kind of linguistic revolution is wishful thinking. I do believe, on the other hand, that there is an enormous amount of progress that could be made to alleviate the severity of the situation in which we presently operate. For those who use the academic language, we must make a conscious effort to increase the use of the Spanish language for academic purposes--tenfold. In some cases, it may go unnoticed by the language police and in others, we will be chastised and discouraged. Our goal must be the highest academic strata as Ada (1976) stated over two decades ago. We are a long way from this point, but if we really want to be a part of an entirely new generation of bilingual education programs, it is an inevitable language risk and one well worth taking. 

| Return to top |
 
 

¹I realize that the Thomas and Collier study has come under intense scrutiny and criticism by opponents of bilingual education such as Christine Rossell (1998) and the READ Institute. The study has also been criticized by more objective parties such as Dr. Jay Greene at the University of Texas in personal communications. [Return]
²The notion of native and near-native language ability continues to be an evasive construct, like most constructs, including language proficiency, to pin down. For further reading on this dilemma, the readers are referred to Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986) and Martin-Jones, M. & Romaine, S. (1986). However, I think it would be myopic to argue that a bilingual education teacher is a native speaker of the academic register of the Spanish language if she or he has gaps in vocabulary, avoids complex sentence structure, or cannot read or write in the language. [Return]
³I am aware that some school districts have attempted to meet the demand for bilingual education teachers by recruiting them from Spanish-speaking countries. This strategy is not considered a long-term solution to the problem at hand since the demand for bilingual education teachers is so great . [Return]
⁴The frailties of language proficiency testing are well documented. Among the main problems is the issue of authenticity or construct validity. The reader is referred to articles by Spolsky (1985) or Shohamy and Reves (1985) for a more complete discussion of authenticity in language testing. My concern is with demonstrating how the tests aid in perpetuating a low level of professional academic proficiency in Spanish and not so much with the many challenges in language testing. [Return]
⁵As August and Hakuta (1997) suggest, we should move away from the use of politically loaded program labels and concentrate more on identifying key features that work well for language minority children. Further, there is plenty variability in terms of how two-way programs are implemented. The main point is that sustained native language instruction is an essential feature of the services being rendered to the students. [Return]
⁶Valdés (1998) offers up a cautionary note regarding this point. She warns that it may be worth thinking through the linguistic outcomes of dual-language programs. That is, it may be that the Anglo English-speaking learner in these programs who learns Spanish well enough may come to displace the minority native speaking child. In other words, job opportunities and other benefits of being bilingual which are generally reserved for the native speaker of Spanish in the United States may dissipate as these programs grow. Perhaps there is some merit to this point, however, it may well be that the majority of the native English speakers in dual language programs come to be Hispanic or Chicano as opposed to Anglo. [Return]

| Return to top |
 
 
 
 

Ada, A. (1976). Editor's introduction. The Journal of the National Association for bilingual education, 1,1. [Return]
 

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (1994). Teacher education pipeline III: Schools, colleges, and Departments of Education enrollments by race, ethnicity and gender. (Educational Resource Information Center ED 369780)  [Return]
 

August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. National Research Council Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Return]
 

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Reading, MA: Oxford University Press. [Return]
 

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986). Bilingualism: Basic principles. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. [Return]
 

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1995). European models of bilingual education: Practice, theory and development. In O. García & C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundations (pp. 139-151). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. [Return]
 

Calderón, M. & Díaz, E. (1993). Retooling teacher preparation programs to embrace Latino realities in schools. In Reshaping teacher education in the Southwest: A response to the needs of Latino students and teachers (pp. 51-70). Tomás Rivera Center. [Return]
 

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (1993). The CLAD/BCLAD Examinations: Test specifications (Draft). Unpublished manuscript. Sacramento, CA. [Return]
 

Cazden, C., John, V., & Hymes, D. (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. NY: Teachers College Press. [Return]
 

Chamot, A. & O'Malley, J. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. NY: Addison-Wesly. [Return]
 

Christian, D., Montone, C., Lindholm, K., & Carranza, I. (Eds.). (1997). Profiles in two-way immersion education. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems. [Return]
 

Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175-187. [Return]
 

Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement. (pp. 2-19). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. [Return]
 

Damico, J. & Oller, J. (1991). Theoretical considerations in the assessment of LEP students. In E. Hamayan & J. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 78-110). Austin, TX: Proed. [Return]
 

Díaz-Rico, L., Lynne, T. & Smith, J. (1994). Recruiting and retaining bilingual teachers: A cooperative school community-university model. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 255-268. [Return]
 

Escamilla, K. (1992). Theory to practice: A look at maintenance bilingual classrooms. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 11, 1-25. Boise State University. [Return]
 

Figueroa, R. & García, E. (1994) Issues in testing students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Education, Fall, 10-19. [Return]
 

Fleischman, H. & Hopstock, P. (1993). Descriptive study of services to limited English proficient students. Volume 1: Summary of findings and conclusions. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. [Return]
 

Grant, C. (1992). Educational research and teacher training for successfully teaching limited English proficient students. Proceedings of the second national research symposium on limited English proficient student issues: Focus on evaluation and measurement. Vol. 2.431-455. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs. [Return]
 

Grant, L. (1995). Testing bilingual teacher's language proficiency: The case of Arizona. (Educational Resource Information Center ED 384 222  [Return]
 

Greene, J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin. [Return]
 

Guerrero, M. (1994). A critical analysis of the validity of the Four Skills Exam. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. [Return]
 

Hernández-Chávez, E. (1996). La pérdida del español entre los chicanos. Paper presented at the Annual New Mexico Association for Bilingual Education, Albuquerque, NM. [Return]
 

Lindholm, K. (1993). Un modelo educacional de éxito para estudiantes inmigrantes de origen Latino. Revista de psicología social y personalidad, Vol. IX, 2, 85-94. [Return]
 

Macías, R. (1988). Bilingual teacher supply and demand in the United States. Claremont, CA: University of Southern California and the Tomas Rivera Center. [Return]
 

Martin-Jones, M. & Romaine, S. (1986). Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 7,1, 26-38. [Return]
 

McCollum, P. (1994). Language use in two-way bilingual programs. Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) Newsletter, Vol. XXI, No. 2, 1, 9-11. [Return]
 

Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18, 2, 5-11. [Return]
 

Met, M. & Lorenz, E. (1997). Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades of experience. In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 243-264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Return]
 

Molina, R. (1994). Considerations for the successful implementation of two-way bilingual immersion programs. Unpublished manuscript, San Jose Unified School District, San Jose, CA. [Return]
 

Moll, L. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 21, (2), 20-24. [Return]
 

National Association for Bilingual Education (1992). Professional standards for the preparation of bilingual/multicultural teachers. Washington, D.C. [Return]
 

Norfleet, L. (1994). The reliability and validity of the Arizona Classroom Teacher Spanish Proficiency Exam. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. [Return]
 

Oller, J. (1989). Language and experience: Classic pragmatism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. [Return]
 

Ovando, C. and Collier, V. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. Boston: McGraw Hill. [Return]

Ramírez, D., Yuen, S., & Ramey, D. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion, early-exit and late exit transitional bilingual education programs for language minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. [Return]
 

Ríos, O. & Solís, M. (1997). Critical issues summit: An examination of bilingual/ESL programs in Texas. McAllen, TX: Education Service Center Region One. [Return]
 

Rivera,C. (Ed.). (1984). Language proficiency and academic achievement. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. [Return]
 

Rossell, C. (1998). Mystery on the bilingual express: A critique of the Thomas & Collier study. READ Perspectives, 2, Fall. [Return]
 

Skutnabb Kangas, T. (1988). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In T. Skutnabb Kangas (Ed.), Minority education: From shame to struggle. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. [Return]
 

Solomon, J. & Rhodes, N. (1995). Conceptualizing academic language. University of California, Santa Cruz: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. [Return]
 

Stansfield, C. & Kenyon, D. (1991). Development of the Texas Oral Proficiency Test (TOPT). Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. (ED 332 522) [Return]
 

Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. [Return]
 

Valdés, G. (1989). Testing bilingual proficiency for specialized occupations: Issues and implications. In B.R. Gifford (Ed.), Test policy and test performance: Education, language and culture (pp. 207-229). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Return]
 

Valdés, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 3, 391-429. [Return]
 

Waggoner, D. & O'Malley, J. (1984). Teachers of limited English proficient children in the United States. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 9, 3, 25-42. [Return]
 

Wilkinson, L. (Ed.) (1982). Communicating in the classroom. NY: Academic Press. [Return]
 

Wink, J. & Flores, J. (1992). Induction programs for bilingual teachers: Addressing the needs of teachers in language minority education. In J. Flores (Ed.), Chicanos in higher education (pp. 73-80). The Journal of the Association of Mexican American Educators, Inc. [Return]
 

Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Quarterly, 6,3, 323-346. [Return]