|
Rethinking the Education of English Language Learners: Transitional
Bilingual Education Programs
Abelardo Villarreal Intercultural Development
Research Association
Abstract
School reform initiatives have become the hope
for upgrading the achievement levels of all students. Of concern
to many administrators are the English language learners who remain
the most neglected and shortchanged in the school reform movement
with little significant increases, if any, on their achievement
levels (Moss & Puma, 1995). The struggle to achieve equitybased
excellence in education points to a need for rethinking the educational
goals, strategies, and processes that presently shape these educational
programs. The author identifies two contextual dimensions that
are primarily responsible for the success or demise of the transitional
bilingual education program. These dimensions are (1) support
of the program at all levels of the school hierarchy, and (2)
level of knowledge of bilingual education as evidenced through
curriculum and instructional activities implemented in the program.
Using these two dimensions, the author describes a framework for
classifying transitional bilingual education programs. The purpose
of this article is to provide campus principals, in particular,
insights about the impact of an inappropriate transitional bilingual
education program for English language learners, in an effort
to demonstrate how negative attitudes, prejudices, biases, and
misinformation about bilingual education programs lead to inappropriate
practices and unfounded, unsubstantiated, and misinformed policies.
In addition, it attempts to provide wellintentioned principals
with ideas and strategies that can enhance the quality of their
transitional bilingual education programs.
|
Campus principals can be bold and courageous people,
but all of them must answer for the success or failure of students to
reach high achievement standards. Having to answer for student success
can be a rewarding and exhilarating experience that triggers the spirit
for more of the same. Rationalizing student failure can be a demoralizing
and belittling experience that can jeopardize a job and any hopes for
upward mobility in the educational hierarchy.
School reform initiatives have become the hope for
upgrading the achievement levels of all students. Of concern to many
administrators are the English language learners who remain the most
neglected and shortchanged in the school reform movement with little
significant increases, if any, on their achievement levels (Moss &
Puma, 1995). The struggle to achieve equitybased excellence in education
points to a need for rethinking the educational goals, strategies and
processes that presently shape educational programs. This article provides
campus principals, in particular, insights about the impact of an inappropriate
transitional bilingual education program for English language learners.
It is an effort to demonstrate how negative attitudes, prejudices, biases,
and misinformation about bilingual education programs lead to inappropriate
practices and unfounded, unsubstantiated, and misinformed policies.
In addition, it attempts to provide wellintentioned principals with
ideas and strategies that can enhance the quality of their transitional
bilingual education programs.
Genesee (1999) defines transitional bilingual education
as "the most common form of bilingual education for English language
learners . . . [it] provides academic instruction in English language
learners' primary language as they learn English" (p. 13). Research
and experience show that most transitional bilingual education programs
are segregated and anemic. They operate in isolation, lack public and
administrative support, languish in poorly designed models of instruction
(August and Hakuta, 1997), and are staffed by personnel with preconceived
notions on the innate and acquired abilities and aspirations of English
language learners (Moss & Puma, 1995) and their families.
If recent population trends continue, the number of
English language learners will increase to at least an additional one
million students within the next decade (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 1998). Although the educational level of English language
learners has increased incrementally over the years (Moss and Puma,
1995), the overall results have been disastrous and have had a grave
impact on this growing student population. This is evidenced by the
fact that about 25% of English language learners repeat a grade by third
grade (Moss & Puma, 1995).
There is a ray of hope, however. A small percentage
of effective programs have provided some valuable insights about what
works for English language learners (August and Hakuta, 1997). These
successful programs have gone through the complete cycle of the change
process—defining a quality program, acquiring buyin from staff,
and providing an environment conducive to change—as shown by their
institutionalization into the mainstream curriculum, while those struggling
transitional bilingual education programs are stuck in the first step
of the change process. All of these steps are key ingredients in a successful
innovation.
During my 30 years of involvement in bilingual education
as a parent, then as a teacher, curriculum developer, elementary school
principal, secondary education director, university faculty and educational
consultant, I visited numerous bilingual education programs and collected
copious notes on what I observed. Also, over time, I have reviewed and
analyzed numerous articles and research studies that support or oppose
bilingual education. My recollections and conclusions are the major
sources of information used to frame this article. There is a saying
in Spanish that best characterizes the approach: "Mas sabe el
diablo por viejo que por diablo."
Condition of Education for English Language
Learners 
Elementary English language learners ordinarily trail
other students academically and are retained in higher percentages.
Prospects, a national, longitudinal study mandated by the U.S. Congress
in 1995 (Moss & Puma, 1995), summarizes key findings as they relate
to academic performance, instructional programs and practices, and competency
of teaching personnel. Key findings include the following:
Academic Performance
· When compared to all third graders, 7% received
a grade of unsatisfactory in reading compared to 16% of English language
learners and 19% of English language learners in highpoverty schools.
In mathematics, the gap is slightly higher ranging from 8% of all third
graders receiving an unsatisfactory grade, to 18% of English language
learners and 22% of English language learners in highpoverty schools.
· When teachers were asked about their perceptions
relative to student ability and performance, they reported an even larger
gap with perceptions of English language learners being lower.
· By third grade, 25% of English language learners
compared to 15% of all other students have been retained in at least
one grade.
Instructional Programs and Practices
· Approximately 52% of English language learners
receive content area instruction in a language other than English. Wherever
a language other than English is used, 40% of the instruction in first
grade classrooms is in English, while 50% of the instruction is in English
in third grade classrooms. The percentage between the use of English
and other language varies depending on high or low concentrations of
English language learners. Traditionally, schools with high concentrations
of English language learners tend to use the native language in higher
proportions.
· Approximately onethird of first and third grade
English language learners do not receive a special language program
such as bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL).
Staffing
· Many English language learners are in schools
with no role models with the same ethnic background. This is an example
of "a mismatch between the diverse population of students and the
relatively homogeneous population of teachers [that] makes it difficult
for all students to have role models in school with whom they can readily
identify" (Latham et al., 1999, p. 23).
· An alarming percentage of teachers of English
language learners do not have the credentials or training to teach atypical
students with diverse
needs. For example, approximately one third of first grade English
language learners and onefifth of third grade English language learners
receive instruction by a teacher credentialed in bilingual education.
· Henke et al. (1997) reported that although minority
students comprised 32% in 199394, only 13% of teachers are minority
teachers.
Since the early 1970s, pioneers of bilingual education,
Dr. José A. Cárdenas and Dr. Blandina Cárdenas,
have pinpointed areas of incompatibilities between school practices
and the educational needs of minority children. In the midst of those
tumultuous times involving litigation after litigation that sought an
answer to a problem of national scope, Cárdenas and Cárdenas
conceptualized the Theory of Incompatibilities, a framework for schools
to use in understanding the factors contributing to the dismal failure
of Hispanic children, the problems plaguing the education establishment,
and the adequate instructional responses. Cárdenas and Cárdenas
(1977) identified five areas of incompatibilities.
1. Poverty: Schools must adapt the program that "fails
to take into account these unique early development patterns and assumes
(and requires) the same developmental level normally found in middleclass
children" (p. 23).
2. Culture: Minority children bring a culture that
schools sometimes fail to acknowledge and integrate into the curriculum.
3. Language: A student's first language must be considered
in adjusting the curriculum and delivering instruction.
4. Mobility: English language learners are highly mobile;
curriculum is designed for stable populations.
5. Societal Perceptions: Negative perceptions about
these students create an environment of neglect and low levels of expectation.
More than 25 years later the research on effective
bilingual education programs is providing evidence to support the "theory
of incompatibilities."
Framework for Classifying
Transitional Bilingual Education Programs
Many states require school districts to implement,
at a minimum, transitional bilingual education programs for English
language learners at the elementary grades and ESL at the middle and
high school grades. For example, the majority of elementary schools
in Texas have strategically chosen transitional bilingual education
programs over developmental bilingual education programs. It is the
most politically expedient approach to take, less threatening and closest
to maintaining the status quo, minimally disrupting the standard way
of doing things.
A vast majority of schools choose transitional bilingual
education programs simply because of their temporary nature and a philosophy
that
places the learning of English and through English as the ultimate
and only goal of the program. Furthermore, many schools place the mainstream
program as the only instructional program that will ultimately provide
the English language learners with the minimal education that they need
in order to survive and function in our political and economic system.
Many of these programs operate in a cloud of covert prejudices and biases
against these students' abilities and their families' beliefs about
the need for an education.
Since their inception, transitional bilingual education
programs have been doomed to failure. There is, however, "superficial"
understanding of the need to teach in the native language (sometimes
required by legislation and state mandates) and an assumption that English
language learners learn content only in English. Many of these transitional
bilingual education programs are based on the premise that English language
learners reach the school doors with a language and a culture that interfere
with the schools' learning opportunities. Then, there are administrators
who firmly believe in the principles of good bilingual education instruction
but succumb to the pressure of preparing students as soon as possible
for the state's standardized achievement measure that is administered
in English.
In all cases, principals find themselves in difficult
predicaments, often times mandating instruction that favors the use
of English and limiting the use of Spanish or any other language to
only a few minutes. Contrary to what some bilingual education critics
say, transitional bilingual education programs are overwhelmingly taught
in English. Many lack a spirited and determined leadership necessary
to make education work for English language learners.
Although limited in addressing the potential which
language minority students bring to school, transitional bilingual education
programs can have a positive impact on the academic achievement of English
language learners. Philosophically, its major limitations stem from
political expediency and a degree of public xenophobia that have corrupted
efforts to provide a quality educational program for these students.
English language learners already bring proficiency in a language other
than English, a language that could be developed formally sidebyside
with English, creating bilingual citizens with minimal effort. This
student asset is ignored.
Furthermore, it is politically expedient to minimize
the demands that a bilingual program will have on the existing teacher
preparation programs, on existing teaching staff and administrators,
and on the cost of education. If the academic performance of English
language learners was the measure of instructional effectiveness of
transitional bilingual education programs, one would have to conclude
that this program type has been a dismal failure. There is, however,
evidence that transitional bilingual education programs, when implemented
correctly, can have a positive impact on the academic achievement of
English language learners.
A close examination of existing transitional bilingual
education programs in Texas reveals that two contextual conditions are
primarily responsible for
the success or demise of the program. These two conditions, called
"dimensions," embody the attributes of successful transitional
bilingual programs in varying degrees. These dimensions are (1) support
of the program at all levels and (2) knowledge base of bilingual education
as evidenced through curriculum and instructional activities. Knowledge
base refers to researchbased knowledge in first and secondlanguage learning,
bilingual education practices, and ESL methodologies. It ranges from
the presence of a strong knowledge base in some key individuals in the
school district to operational evidence of researchbased practices at
all levels of the school hierarchy. Support refers to moral, physical,
and fiscal support for bilingual education and ESL methods. It is evidenced
by educators' commitment to make education work for English language
learners and by full fiscal support for competent staff and a quality
curriculum. Figure 1 describes four classifications based on the degree
to which transitional bilingual education programs show evidence of
these two dimensions. The first prototype illustrated in Quadrant I
represents those programs that have all the major attributes of a successful
program. Quadrant II is the prototype that is perhaps most in use by
many schools. It is referred to as an "acquiescent" bilingual
program because it adheres closely to the law. Quadrant III includes
programs in schools with high concentrations of English language learners,
which lack knowledge and sophistication, and which are underfunded both
at the district and school levels. The last quadrant includes those
programs in school districts that overtly oppose any special programs
for English language learners.
The quadrants illustrate the unique characteristics of four categories
of transitional bilingual education programs. Quadrant I represents
programs that are responsible and produce high academic achievement
results in English language learners. Quadrant II represents those with
little support but that strive to comply with minimum requirements of
the law. Quadrant III are those that provide a high degree of moral
support but lack the knowledge, sophistication, and competent staff
to implement a quality instructional program. Quadrant IV lacks moral
support and shows little empathy with a concern for a quality educational
program for English language learners. Programs in Quadrants II, III,
and IV are referred to in this article as the struggling programs—programs
responsible for the overall poor academic performance of English language
learners. Successful Transitional Bilingual Education ProgramsQuadrant
I
Quadrant I transitional bilingual education programs
"talk the walk" (articulate what needs to be done) and "walk
the talk" (do what should be done). These programs evolve in academic
environments that are determined to succeed and have no excuses for
anything less than success. A major limitation is their philosophy to
phase out the use and teaching of the native language once proficiency
in English has been obtained. This philosophy negates what the English
language learners bring—another language and another culture that
are not part of the mainstream. Instead of seeing the language and culture
as national assets that should be preserved and capitalized on, they
are abandoned as soon as the child exits the bilingual education program.
A successful model of a transitional bilingual education
program is based on the most recent knowledge of the linguistic, cognitive,
and social development of languageminority children. Even though it
is based on the most current knowledge about what works for English
language learners, any model of instruction will require a more extensive
evaluation that allows for applying findings to new situations with
varying levels of similarities and differences. Successful transitional
bilingual education schools have been able to neutralize or circumvent
the effects of contextual issues (poverty, violence) within families
and communities on the quality of education and achievement outcomes
of English language learners.
Figure 2 is a checklist that elaborates on the attributes
of Quadrant I transitional bilingual education programs. It is provided
to help struggling programs establish improvement goals. It is also
the backdrop for descriptions of schools with struggling transitional
bilingual programs.
Figure 2: Checklist of Attributes of Successful Transitional Bilingual
Education Programs
Conducive Environment
• Values and celebrates student linguistic and
cultural diversity (Lein et al., 1997; Ogbu and MatuteBianchi, 1986).
• Values all students, communicates high expectations
(Lien et al., 1997; Villarreal and Solis, 1998).
• Integrates instructional program and all students
in the overall school operation (Berman et al., 1995; McLoed, 1996;
Tikunoff et al., 1991).
Spirited and Determined Leadership
• Supports educational equity and excellence for
all students (Carter and Chatfield, 1986; Lucas et al., 1990).
• Imparts a sense of urgency for maintaining high
academic standards for all students (Lien et al., 1997). • Nurtures
and sustains a family environment that is inclusive of parents, students,
and teachers (McLoed, 1996).
• Expects and exerts pressure to excel (Goldenberg
and Sullivan, 1994).
Dedicated and Knowledgeable Staff
• All staff members "walk the talk"
and team up to excel in the bilingual education program.
• Teachers consistently receive training and are
provided technical assistance when the need arises.
• Teachers receive training that is aligned with
the instructional plan prepared for English language learners (Milk
et al., 1992).
• Teachers are equipped with strategies and techniques
consistent with phonetic and meaningbased approaches.
• Recruitment procedures are strict and seek the
bestqualified staff for the bilingual education staff (Maroney, 1998).
• Teachers demonstrate a commitment to make education
work for English language learners.
• Teachers receive training and know how to assess
areas of student needs and plan instruction accordingly.
Partnering with Community and Families
• Relationships with the community and families
go beyond just helping at school; they are characterized by a strong
desire to get parents involved in the educational process (Robledo Montecel
et al., 1993).
• Community and families are perceived as assets
that should be capitalized on and integrated into the school resources
in a manner that values and seeks their contributions (Moll et al.,
1992).
• Families play a key role in promoting the cognitive
and academic development of their children, and their contributions
should be coordinated and integrated into the learning environment (Montemayor,
1997).
• Schools care for the welfare of families by
providing opportunities to access various social services available
in the community.
• Schools and families join forces to advocate
children's rights (Robledo Montecel et al., 1993).
Accessible Learning Environment
• Schools use a diversity of teaching approaches
to ensure that all children have access to learning in the most efficient
and effective manner (Lucas et al., 1990). • The learning environment
is modified in a number of ways to accommodate the varying needs of
English language learners (Berman et al., 1995).
• Classroom teachers use family and community's
"funds of knowledge" to base and enrich instruction (Moll
et al., 1992).
Program and Curriculum Alignment
• Schools have a clear understanding of levels
of language and content instruction and use these levels for instructional
planning to facilitate transition and efficient progress (Berman et
al., 1995).
• Teachers from different grade levels produce
and implement a seamless curriculum that flows uninterrupted (McLoed,
1996).
• Goals and objectives for the bilingual program
flow from the mainstream curriculum; learning standards are not lowered.
• Schools support students exiting from the bilingual
program and transitioning to the mainstream curriculum and address obstacles
that could lead to failure in the mainstream program.
Capitalizing on the Student Language and Cultural Resources
• Schools celebrate and value a diversity of languages
and cultures as community assets and valuable to the national interest
(Lucas & Katz, 1994).
• Schools acknowledge the power of the first language
in learning English faster and more effectively (Moll & Diaz, 1985).
Inclusive and Comprehensive Curriculum
• The curriculum is balanced to ensure that its
literacy program develops basic and higher order thinking skills (McLoed,
1996).
• Teaching approaches are eclectic, customizing
instruction with phonetic and meaningbased approaches (Adams and Bruck,
1995; PurcellGates, 1996).
• Schools ensure that reading comprehension and
writing skills are developed in the strongest language and provide opportunities
to demonstrate their transfer in English (WongFillmore et al., 1985).
• Instruction of skills and concepts addressed
in the statemandated test or standardized tests receive special attention
through explicit skill instructional activities.
• Time is allocated specifically for explicit
basic and higher order thinking skill instruction; time schedules vary
accordingly (Escamilla, 1994).
• Teachers provide opportunities for studentinitiated
and studentdirected learning activities. • Teachers relate instruction
to practical and meaningful student experiences (PeaseAlvarez et al.,
1991).
• English language learners have access to gradelevel
content; curriculum is not watered down (McLoed, 1996),
Instructional Practices and Strategies
• Teachers use periodic, systematic, and multiple
student assessment measures to inform the instructional decisionmaking
process (ValdezPierce & O'Malley, 1992).
• Assessment is conducted in the student's native
language and English when appropriate (McCollum, 1999).
• Student assessment results are discussed and
used collaboratively with other teachers to plan and coordinate instruction
(McCollum, 1999).
• Successful classrooms use cooperative and collaborative
approaches to learning (Calderon et al., 1996).
• Teachers build in redundancy in critical skills
areas (Saunders et al., 1998).
• Ample opportunities are provided for English
language learners to hear adults who are native language speakers both
at the social and academic levels (Calderon et al., 1996; Gersten, 1996).
• Students are provided opportunities for interaction
with Englishspeaking peers (McLoed, 1996).
• Questioning strategies requires students to
clarify and expand on understanding of text (Gersten, 1996). Teachers
develop students' metacognitive skills and provide opportunities for
students to show competence in selecting and using metacognitive skills
(Dianda & Flaherty, 1995). Teachers check that instruction is comprehensible
and modify instruction accordingly.
EquityBased Education Excellence
• English language learners are integrated in
both academic and social contexts with native Englishspeaking students
(McLoed, 1996).
• The instructional program for English language
learners maintains the high academic standards required for all students
• TBE programs are an integral part of the mainstream
curriculum.
• TBE programs have the facilities and resources
available to do what it must do.
Quadrant II, III, and IV Programs: The Struggling Program
Three profiles of transitional bilingual education
programs (Quadrants II, III, IV) not only fail to address the attributes
of effective educational programs, but also are flawed conceptually
and operationally. Their flaws are consistent with the degree to which
each prototype shares the following characteristics and myths:
1. Struggling programs usually share the philosophy
that learning through English is crucial and perhaps the only and best
way to teach English language learners.
2. All believe that using the native language may have
some value but ignore that learning in the students' native language
can lead to greater facility in learning English.
3. All maintain that achievement in students' native
language must be verified in English before it is acknowledged.
4. There is blind faith on the appropriateness of the
mainstream curriculum in English to meet the diverse needs of students.
5. There is a strong sentiment that students who speak
a language other than English must strive to conform. The onus of responsibility
for education is on the family and student.
Struggling programs differ among themselves; however,
on their commitment to make education work for English language learners,
their belief on the abilities of English language learners to succeed,
and their ability to use theory and make it operational through practice.
The following scenario represents the attitudes of
a counselor in Quadrant II and Quadrant IV schools as she indirectly
attempts to influence and guide the parent to deny student enrollment
in bilingual education.
Scenario A
Mr. Comesalsa is an elementary counselor who is responsible
for the identification and placement of students who are eligible for
special services because of their limited proficiency in English. He
is responsible for following up with parents who indicate in the home
survey that they speak Spanish at home most of the time.
"Good morning. Are you Victoria's parents?"
asks Mr. Comesalsa. "You state in this form that your family speaks
Spanish at home all the time. Because of that we will have to test Victoria.
Do you know what will happen if we test Victoria and she is found to
need special instruction because she does not speak English well?"
"No," answers the mother.
"Well, she will be placed in a bilingual education
classroom that is located in one of the portables. She will be learning
Spanish."
"Spanish! I thought she was coming to school to
leam English. I can teach her Spanish at home. In fact, Victoria and
my other kids speak English all the time at home. Let me correct that
form," answers the mother. Quadrant II school districts (the acquiescent
group) have the knowledge necessary and have made the commitment to
at least comply with minimum state and federal guidelines. They "talk
the walk" but fail miserably in "walking the talk." These
schools are, however, guided by an urgency to exit students from the
program as soon as possible. Consequently, one will witness the phenomenon
that students at the lower grades are doing exceptionally well but show
a decline and a widening of the educational gap between English language
learners and majority students.
The second scenario represents the conceptual shallowness
of a Quadrant III transitional bilingual education program that is implemented
in a context of support for English language learners' success academically.
Scenario B
Mr. Puro Corazon is a principal at an elementary school
which has 65 students who have been identified as English language learners.
During his first staff meeting with the faculty of La Esperanza Elementary
School, he reviews the requirements of a bilingual education program.
"This year, our enrollment of English language
leamers has increased by about 20 students. We will have three bilingual
education classes. In this school we must do whatever is needed to succeed
with our English language learners," comments the principal.
"What happens in these bilingual education classes?
I hear that they teach only Spanish. Is this correct?" remarks
one of the new teachers in the campus.
"In our bilingual education classes, teachers
are instructed to use as much English as possible. We value the students'
language and culture. However, these students must develop their English
as soon as possible. We stress the development of English," comments
the principal.
"I took a course at the university in bilingual
education methods and what was impressed on us was that state guidelines
require the use of Spanish most of the time to ensure that concepts
are learned. We were also told that state guidelines were just minimums
and sometimes were in conflict with what research tells us needs to
happen. Are we not following state guidelines?" reacts the new
teacher.
"We are in compliance with state law and regulations.
Keep this in mind, we do what we think we must do. Does that answer
your question?" responds the principal.
Quadrant III schools have the "heart in the right
place" and are willing to do whatever is needed to improve the
education of English language learnersIn this paradigm, they are the
committed, unenlightened schools. However, these schools are limited
by a lack of knowledge and apathy toward upgrading their knowledge base.
It is not uncommon to see such schools staffed with people whose whole
career has been spent in that campus. There is a feeling of despair
with the inability of many students to achieve, but learning takes place
in a loving and caring environment. Students usually stay in school,
but lack the necessary life skills to compete with other students in
the real world, both academically and in their preparation for the workplace.
The third scenario represents the negative attitudes
of a teacher in trying to influence a beginning teacher in a Quadrant
IV school.
Scenario C
Ms. Maniorca is a second grade teacher who has been
at this school for almost 25 years. She is well known in the community
as a strict disciplinarian and one who retains at least 25%of her class
every year. This community is approximately 75% Latino and 25% Anglo
students. She regularly complains because the school has banned the
use of lower first and high first grade classrooms. Consequently, she
feels her students are not quite ready for second grade.
"It is that time of the year again. I have to
decide who will be promoted and who will be retained. Somehow I will
have to prove to this school that most of my students come with a number
of deficiencies and need more than one year in first grade to begin
to work close to where my regular students are," comments Ms. Maniorca
to Ms. Ojald, a beginning teacher.
"What do you mean when you say `regular students'?"
asks the beginning teacher.
"My regular students are those who already speak
English and come from families where they care for their children. Many
of my students come from families that speak only Spanish. This already
puts them behind my regular students. Their parents are not high school
graduates, some of them have only four or five years of schooling. They
really don't care; why should I?" answers the frustrated teacher.
"So, what is our responsibility to these students?"
asks the beginning teacher.
"Take care of them until they reach the seventh
grade. By then, they will be ready to drop out. There is no hope."
Schools in Quadrant IV are referred to as recalcitrant
schools. These schools refuse covertly to comply with the minimum requirements
established by state and federal guidelines. They operate in environments
where negative and stereotypical preconceived ideas exist about the
abilities and aspirations of English language learners. Not only are
their staff indifferent, but they also are hostile and are convinced
that these students will eventually leave school.
Challenges for Program Improvement
Struggling schools demonstrate school practices that
are less than or diametrically opposed to what we know about successful
transitional bilingual education programs. I use the major attribute
categories in the checklist of the model program to describe the contrasting
practices observed in the three prototypes of struggling programs. These
practices provide a snapshot of what is happening in struggling schools.
Furthermore, I provide some insights on key challenges for a struggling
school principal. The list of challenges is not exhaustive but includes
the most critical challenges. If addressed adequately (con ánimo
y corazón), principals will definitely see an improvement in
the program.
Dimension 1: Program Support and Commitment
A Conducive and Supportive Climate
A key finding is that community and school beliefs
about the ability of English language learners to succeed academically
and an ethos of high expectations for students are prerequisites to
creating a sense of purpose and a shared commitment to sí
se puede.
Challenge: Make TBE an integral part of the mainstream
curriculum. It is not uncommon to find the bilingual education program
operating in isolation with few, if any, links to the mainstream curriculum.
It is also not rare to find schools garnering resources to upgrade the
mainstream curriculum with few, if any, allocated for the bilingual
education program curriculum. Had it not been for federal resources
such as Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act, and additional funds
provided for bilingual education by states, the bilingual program would
probably be suffering from total neglect. In fact, curriculum content
(grade level skills, concepts, and knowledge) should be basically the
same for English language learners and other students. The delivery
occurs in the students' native language or by using ESL techniques.
Some schools begin by including bilingual education teachers in the
campus committee designed to align the mainstream curriculum to the
statemandated test or academic standards. When the time comes to align
materials to the locally approved academic standards, bilingual teachers
form their own committee to select the appropriate materials to deliver
the instruction. This alleviates the fears that bilingual education
does not prepare students as well as the mainstream curriculum. The
principal's responsibility is to communicate to teachers, parents, and
the community that bilingual education is tantamount to the local mainstream
curriculum and is not a remediation program. Students who progress academically
through a bilingual education curriculum will be
just as prepared as any other student in the district.
In fact, the student in the bilingual education classroom will have
also developed some proficiency in reading and writing in the native
language.
Challenge: Improve the school climate. The climate
that surrounds the instruction of English language learners must be
positive, encouraging, and inviting for teachers, students, and their
families. A sense of optimism and commitment must prevail. Administrators
and teachers can communicate high expectations to students, including
English language learners, and can show particular manifestations of
high expectations. Some schools do this by creating banners that convey
high expectations in both English and the native language. One school
had a banner that read: "Only apathy will stop us from reaching
the highest star Sólo la indiferencia nos puede parar de lograr
la meta más alta." This banner was on the school marquee
and would be placed at the entrance of each wing. Furthermore, teachers
were asked to discuss with students what this meant each morning. Teachers
and students collaboratively would identify their goal for that day.
Families received training from the school on ways to set and communicate
high expectations for students. Whenever the school failed to reach
its goal, the focus was not on finding an excuse but on how to adjust
the instruction. In a study, Successful Texas Schoolwide Programs, the
authors outline their findings around seven themes. One theme, "No
Excuses," describes how in spite of numerous obstacles and difficult
odds, teachers and administrators are able to do what they feel is needed
in order for students to be successful. A task for the principal is
to get teachers, administrators, families, and communities together
to develop a vision that is inclusive of all students. Nonnegotiable
at these meetings are the following ideas: strive high; every student
has the potential; no excuses; Sí se puede.
A diversity of languages and cultures in the school
was validated through various cultural celebrations and the integration
of English language learners in as many classes as possible. For example,
at the first staff meeting of the year, the principal made it a point
to talk about the different languages and cultures represented at the
campus. Part of the principal's message was to use this campus asset
and capitalize on it by discussing in teacher meetings and classes about
the benefits of diversity. Students were provided an option to learn
another language. In this particular case, a paraprofessional who was
a teacher in Mexico but did not have the credentials in the United States
was hired to teach Spanish. Each class had at least 45 minutes a week
of Spanish language instruction.
Spirited and Determined Leadership
A key finding is that leadership at both the administrative
and classroom levels determines the level of commitment to make bilingual
education programs a success that is manifested in increased academic
achievement, low dropout rates, high graduation rates, and low retention
rates.
Practices that Collectively Demonstrate Weak Campus Leadership
Challenge: Establish and nurture human relationships
among educators, teachers and administrators, educators and students,
and educators and families. Goldenberg and Sullivan (1994) describe
leadership as the "cohesion that makes the other elements and components"
of a program work together to create positive change (p. 12). Principals
are charged with the task of establishing and nurturing relationships
that collectively can have an impact on the quality of transitional
bilingual education programs in a school. The issue of relationships
cannot be underestimated as potent factors in creating a conducive environment.
In 1992, the Institute for Education and Transformation
at Claremont Graduate School issued a report of research involving four
culturally diverse schools that demonstrates the power that human relationships
have on keeping and engaging students in school. Sergiovanni (1994)
summarizes these findings around seven themes, each stressing the importance
of caring relationships based on mutual respect and trust. Furthermore,
each theme relates some of the problems that emerge when such relationships
are nonexistent or weak. Lessons learned from the study include the
following:
1. Student depression and hopelessness are the byproducts
of poor relationships between educators and students. Schools must emphasize
the importance of creating a partnership relationship with students
and families based on a desire and commitment to make education work
for students.
2. Students are conscious of race, culture, and class issues and
seek to know and understand each other's culture. Schools must address
these issues as part of the curriculum and consider them in the planning
and delivery of instruction.
3. Students seek adult guidance from teachers and parents
and desire to talk about values and beliefs. The myth that poor families
have radically different values is debunked by this study.
4. Schools usually do not view these critical human
relationships with much seriousness. Principals should revisit their
campuses and study the relationships that prevail relative to the implementation
of a transitional bilingual education program. If any of the answers
to the following questions is no, it is critical that some form of intervention
occur. The questions are:
• Do all teachers feel a responsibility for the
academic achievement of English language learners?
• Have you created a "community of mind"
as reflected on a shared vision and expectations of English language
learners?
• Does your faculty consider community people
and families of students as assets that must be tapped to form partnerships
with school people to design and deliver the best education possible
for all students?
Other challenges to the principal include: (1) create
an impetus and a vision of success without boundaries; (2) nurture exemplary
educational environments that promote academic success and a safe, orderly,
and caring environment; (3) leverage funding to garner necessary resources;
(4) establish and consistently nurture a "sense of family;"
and (5) provide opportunities for staff, students, and the community
to celebrate their successes.
A Dedicated and Knowledgeable Staff
A key finding is that teachers need support in various
ways: exposure to new research findings, crafting an instructional model
that meets the needs of English language learners, training and technical
assistance on teaching skills critical to the instructional model, opportunities
for collaborative planning, and a system of mentoring and coaching.
Challenge: Provide opportunities for collaborative
planning and designing of curriculum plan and lessons. Sergiovanni
(1994) describes the context in which a request for collaborative planning
occurs as an "ambivalence between the value of individualism and
the need for community accounts for our discomfort whenever someone
suggests that teaching practice become more collective" (p. 49).
The fact that successful schools for English language learners require
some degree of collective and collaborative planning presents a challenge
for principals. Experience has shown that, although learning communities
exist in most schools, the benefits of communities that were formed
with some trepidation are minimal. Principals must face this challenge
by allowing time for groups of teachers to define the role of the committee
and the committee members and to establish rules that support partnerships.
Practices Common to Struggling Transitional Bilingual
Education Programs
Principals must set the example, provide ample opportunities for
communities to form, celebrate successes of communities, provide support
to fledgling ones, and guard the concept constantly.
Challenge: Provide staff development opportunities
to learn effective teaching strategies. High expectations is a key
training area—perhaps one of the hardest areas to address through
professional development activities. August and Hakuta (1997) affirm
this by acknowledging that "one important way to raise teacher
expectations is to raise student achievement by helping teachers acquire
skills and knowledge needed to be more successful with students, rather
than exhorting teachers to raise their expectations" (p. 185).
The need to provide professional development opportunities that are
closely associated with the instructional design or model cannot be
overemphasized. The topics include specific learning and metacognitive
strategies, cooperative learning, and thematic units in the native language
and English.
Most of the literature on effective bilingual programs
documents teaching practices (Berman, et al., 1995; Collier, 1995; Garcfa,
1988; Solis, 1998) that have been observed in classrooms where English
language learners succeed academically. For example, Collier (1995)
identifies three major themes: (1) highly interactive classrooms, (2)
problemsolving activities, and (3) inquiry and discovery learning activities.
Zehler (1994) augments this list to include a predictable environment,
active participation in meaningful and challenging tasks, and providing
support for understanding.
Challenge: Recruit competent bilingual education
teachers. Recruiting bilingual education teachers who have their
heart in the right place and are well informed on the most recent research
on effective instructional practice is at the core of the problem. Principals
in successful schools "kept their ear to the ground" and always
identified teachers who demonstrated the will and the competency to
implement quality bilingual education programs.
Cárdenas and Cárdenas (1977) make recommendations
about staffing a bilingual education program. Staff must be informed
and acknowledge the unique characteristics of languageminority students.
Second, staff differentiation is an alternative to adequately staffing
a bilingual program. Third, the program must embark a massive retraining
of teachers that includes "regular" teachers. Last, there
should be a program for lateral and upward mobility of bilingual education
staff.
Challenge: Provide guidance to new bilingual teachers;
protect them from the influence of other teachers who overtly or covertly
are sabotaging the bilingual education program. New bilingual teachers
are vulnerable individuals who learn quickly to accede to the whims
of indecisive administrators and an apathetic faculty. Many new bilingual
teachers are placed in "nowin" situations and are overwhelmed
by a feeling of "loneliness in the wilderness." In successful
schools, principals provide opportunities for subdominant groups like
new bilingual teachers to have "access to decision making, creating
internal advocacy groups, building diversity into organizational information
and incentive systems, and strengthening career
opportunities" (Bolman & Deal, 1997). New bilingual teachers
are acknowledged for their atypical skills and commitment to equitybased
educational excellence for English language learners.
Partnering with Community and Families
A key finding is that strong parental and community
involvement programs create a synergy between the school and the home
that translates to greater student engagement and more meaningful participation
in the educational process.
Practices Common to Struggling Schools
Challenge: Map the assets represented in the community and
in families and integrate them into the instructional plan. Kretzmann
and McKnight (1993) acknowledge the power that an assetbased partnership
between the school and families can have on student academic success.
This assetbased approach focuses on strengths of the family and embraces
the "we" concept where schools and families share an attitude
of mutual resolve to seeking solutions that affect the quality of education.
A caring and responsive school is the best guarantee of a community's
future. The partnership that ensues provides a firm foundation for educational
renewal and community regeneration. This partnership shares a vision
and develops a blueprint for making that vision a reality. This strategy
begins with the acknowledgment of strengths, the assets that are present,
and not with what is absent or with what is problematic. Families and
schools are not deficitdriven; they are strength and assetdriven.
Dimension 2: Pedagogically Sound Curriculum and Instructional Program
Accessible Learning Environment
A key finding is that English language learners bring
to school a diversity of assets and needs that require customized learning
environments and approaches. No two schools and classrooms will have
an identical approach to serving the needs of their student population.
Practices that Collectively Describe an Unresponsive Learning Environment
Challenge: Organize instruction in innovative ways; build flexibility
in the bilingual education classroom. There is no single way to
specifically address the profile of a bilingual education classroom.
No classroom is exactly the same; modifications and adjustments must
be made to ensure that the instructional approach responds to the contextual
conditions (Berman et al., 1995) and is aligned with the characteristics
and needs of English language learners. The challenge of creating the
most appropriate instructional model rests with the school and community.
Furthermore, schools with effective transitional bilingual education
programs create small organizational arrangements (Villarreal and Solís,
1998) e.g., families and academic teams to build cohesion and unity
of purpose, to augment communication among teachers and to create a
system of support. Principals must acknowledge, embrace, and promote
diversity, and encourage innovation in instructional design.
Challenge: Provide a challenging, intellectually
enriching curriculum. Bilingual education programs have been mislabeled
as remedial programs since their inception. They were created to address
a deficitdriven program of instruction for English language learners.
It is not uncommon for parents to deny the enrollment of their children
in bilingual education because of the stigma of remediation attached.
The students' language and culture should be valued and seen as an asset
and a strength to build upon and not as a deficit that must be obliterated.
The instructional program for English language learners should be the
same as the mainstream curriculum. The major difference lies in the
language used for the delivery of instruction. The delivery will either
be made in the students' native language or in sheltered instruction
in English. The curriculum should be intellectually challenging, interactive,
and meaningful. In addition, successful classrooms are printrich. Books
are available in the students' native language and English. Administrators,
teachers, and community members should promote reading by allocating
times for everyone including cafeteria workers, janitors, and office
clerks to spend time reading.
Program and Curriculum Alignment
A key finding is that curriculum and instructional
alignment between primary and elementary school, elementary school and
middle school, middle school and high school, and high school and university
is critical for the smooth transition of English language learners from
one level to the next. Fragmentation of curriculum and philosophical
differences creates an ethos of confusion and disconnectedness.
Challenge: Align curriculum both horizontally and vertically.
Curriculum fragmentation is perhaps one of the most irresponsible school
practices that contributes to the educational chaos in this country.
Study after study reveals that scaffolding instruction in a manner that
is incrementally more difficult is a more responsible approach. Teachers
across grade levels must have opportunities to discuss the chain of
skills and content that form the school's curriculum. Elementary teachers
must have opportunities to align their curriculum by communicating with
middle school teachers. Likewise, middle school teachers must communicate
with high school teachers.
Bilingual and nonbilingual teachers at each grade level
should meet to plan their grade level instruction collaboratively thus
ensuring alignment horizontally. This alignment is realized not only
through planning but is extended to include team teaching, pairing of
classes, and regrouping students (McLoed, 1996). In other words, English
language learners should have the same opportunities as their Englishspeaking
counterparts to take advantage of the curriculum.
Capitalizing on Student Language and Cultural Resources
A key finding is that the use of the native language
for instruction and the integration of the culture into the curriculum
form the foundation for concept development and the acquisition and
learning of English.
Practices Common to Struggling Schools in Using the Native Language
and Culture
Challenge: Establish a program that capitalizes on the linguistic
strengths of students and families in the community. Campuses with
effective bilingual education programs celebrate linguistic and cultural
diversity in different ways. Banners and other important public displays
at the school are written in two languages, at a minimum. Cultural celebrations,
especially associated with the cultures represented in the school, are
conducted and integrated into the school's curriculum. Teachers use
crosscultural interactions where students and teachers learn from each
other's differences. Instruction is based on the structured use of at
least two languages. Initially, the use of a specific language is based
on the relative proficiency of the student in the two languages. In
a transitional bilingual education program, teachers stress the need
to develop reading and writing proficiency in the first language as
a prerequisite to successful learning of English. Children's books reflect
the variety of cultures and the benefits of diversity, and they are
written in the languages used for instruction.
An Inclusive and Comprehensive Curriculum
A key finding is that a curriculum, which capitalizes
on the giftedness of all children, integrates instruction of basic skills
and higher order thinking skills through phonetic and meaningbased instructional
approaches and strategies. \
Practices that Collectively Demonstrate an Inadequate Curriculum
Challenge: Ensure and deliver grade level content. Successful
schools challenge English language learners with grade level content.
They are aware that content is the same as that expected in the mainstream
curriculum; delivery is different. In the bilingual education classroom,
delivery can occur in the native language or in both English and the
native language. The education of English language learners is also
guided by the same educational standards that have been adopted by the
local district. The selection of textbooks and other supplementary materials
must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that these materials challenge
English language learners at their grade level. Particular problems
exist at the secondary level where English language learners are often
denied "access to regular science and mathematics courses because
of poor English skills" (McLoed, 1996, p. 12). Successful schools
conclude that English language learners are intellectually capable to
learn this content. Schools must find ways of delivering this content
by teaching in the native language, using sheltered instruction and
other ESL methods. Anything less than grade level content will retard
their normal progress in school and block them from access to an equal
educational opportunity.
Instructional Practices and Strategies
A key finding is that successful teachers of English
language learner students know how and when to use an array of instructional
strategies that foster first and second language acquisition and develop
cognitive and metacognitive skills.
Practices that Demonstrate a Limited Set of Instructional Strategies
Practices that Demonstrate a Limited Set of Instructional Strategies
(Continued)
Challenge: Promote instructional approaches that foster biliteracy
development and the acquisition of content. Biliteracy development
requires teachers to have a deep understanding of the role of the first
language in the development of the second language. Teachers involved
in delivering content instruction should be trained in second language
teaching methodology and be able to pace and modify instruction to make
it comprehensible. Collaborative and cooperative learning strategies
provide opportunities for English language learners to interact with
other students in meaningful and constructive ways that promote the
use of biliteracy skills and cultural understanding by creating a forum
for students to learn and appreciate each other's cultural differences
and similarities. Thematic units have been used effectively by some
successful schools. A living skills curriculum reinforces the benefits
of positive character traits, personally and academically.
Research indicates that there is no set of instructional
strategies that were present in every successful school that has been
studied; each used a variety of instructional strategies and collaboratively
adjusted instructional strategies to achieve better academic results.
They were, however, guided by a shared and dynamic vision of success
that kept them seeking for more effective methods to deliver instruction.
Framing the Change: A Principal's
Major Task
Bolman and Deal (1997) identify four sides of leadership
that must be adjusted when introducing or adjusting a school innovation.
Adjusting transitional bilingual education programs to create an environment
that supports the attributes of a successful instructional program for
English language learners requires a reexamination of the four sides
of leadership and how action on the part of the principal can set the
tone for successful change. These four sides of leadership include (1)
structural, (2) human resource, (3) political, and (4) symbolic. Bolman
and Deal (1997) state: "ideally, managers combine multiple frames
into a comprehensive approach to leadership. Wise leaders understand
their strengths, work to expand them and build teams that can provide
leadership in all four modes" (p. 317).
Below is a list of activities that a principal in a
struggling transitional bilingual education program can implement to
place the program on the road to recovery.
1. Structural Leadership (Organization designs
which promote maximum efficiency and success.)
• Conceptually and physically integrate the bilingual
education program to the mainstream curriculum.
• Coordinate activities with grade level lead
teachers to involve bilingual teachers in planning and implementing
grade level instruction.
• Redefine tasks and responsibilities to show how every staff
member can share in the responsibility to increase the academic achievement
of English language learners.
• Develop policies and procedures that are consistent
with equitybased excellence in education for ALL students, including
English language learners.
2. Human Resource Leadership (Capitalizes on
skills, attitudes, energy, and commitment to reach goals.)
• Create a philosophy and a vision of equitybased
excellence as the cornerstone of a renewed way of seeing English language
learners and their potential for success.
• Map existing interpersonal relationships that
promote the vision; create relationships that form partnerships among
teachers and personnel including the ones who were never involved in
these matters.
• Nurture these relationships, redirect those
relationships that are counterproductive, and celebrate relationships
and partnerships that promote the vision and create a sense of family
among all staff.
3. Political Leadership (Organizations respond
to the whims of political interests.)
• Plan overall strategies to address the hostility
and the indifference that exist in the campus (and in the community)
as a viable response to the needs of English language learners.
• Establish and nurture a critical mass of staff
members who promote equitybased excellence for the English language
learners.
• Work with the "opposition" by creating
coalitions of individuals with differing views on tasks where they share
views. Being able to work together builds a bond that allows for differences
to be openly discussed and negotiated.
4. Symbolic Leadership (A perspective guided
by meaning, belief, and personal commitment.)
• Unite around the vision of the school and discuss
its meaning for all students, including English language learners. Come
up with manifestations of this new definition at all levels of the school
operation. For example, English language learners may also be gifted
and talented. Therefore, the school should manage to adjust the existing
gifted and talented program to be inclusive of students with other diverse
needs.
• Develop stories about the successes in education
at the campus. Create stories about reasons for celebrating. Talk about
ways to create more stories that relate successes with students including
the English language learners.
• Divide the school into "houses," each
named after a university campus. The school's primary reason for calling
each "house" after a university is
to provide an alternative to affiliation with gangs or other dysfunctional
groups in the community or in school.
The knowledge about what to do is easy once these major
leadership challenges are addressed. Principals in struggling transitional
bilingual education programs must communicate the need and commitment
to improve the quality of the program at the campus. The task is not
easy, yet it is not impossible. Research shows that campuses have taken
a 180degree turn and have changed from a low performing to an exemplary
status where all staff are one family having a powerful, positive impact
on the lives of children. Buena suerte!
References
Adams, M., & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the "great
debate." American Educator, 19 (2) 1020.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling
for languageminority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, B., McLoed, B., Minicucci,
C., Nelson, B., & Woodworth, K. (1995). School reform and student
diversity: Case studies of exemplary practicesfor English language learners.
Berkeley, CA:
National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity
and Second Language Learning and BW Associates.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing
organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco,
CA: JosseyBass Publishers.
Calderón, M., HertzLazarowitz, R., & Slavin,
R. (1996). Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and
composition on students transitioning from Spanish to English reading.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Cárdenas, J., & Cárdenas, B. (1977).
The theory of incompatibilities: A conceptualframeworkfor responding
to the educational needs of Hispanic Americans. San Antonio, TX:
Intercultural Development Research Association.
Carter, T., & Chatfield, M. (1986). Effective bilingual
schools: Implications for policy and practice. American Journal of
Education, 95, 200232.
Collier, V. P. (1995). Acquiring a second language
for school. Direction in language education, 1 (4). Washington,
DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1998). State
education indicators with afocus on Title I. Washington, DC.
Dianda, M., & Flaherty, J. (1995) Effects of
success for all on the reading achievement offirst graders in California
bilingual programs. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Escamilla, K. (1994). Descubriendo la lectura: An early intervention
literacy program in Spanish. Literacy teaching and learning, 1 (l),
5770.
García, E. E. (1987, 1988). Effective schooling
for language minority students. Focus: Occasional papers in bilingual
education 1. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
Genesee, F. (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically
diverse students. Washington, DC, & Santa Cruz, CA: Center for
Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
Gersten, R. (1996). Literacy instruction for languageminority
students: The transition years. The Elementary School Journal, 96
(3), 228244.
Goldenberg, C., & Sullivan, J. (1994). Making
change happen in a languageminority school: A searchfor coherence. EPR
# 13. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Henke, R. R., Choy, S. P., Chen, X., Geis, S., Alt,
M. N., & Broughman, S. P. (1997). America's teachers: Profile
of a profession, 199394. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Institute for Education and Transformation. (1992).
Voice from the inside: A report on schooling from inside the classroomPart
I: Naming the problem. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate School.
Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building
communities from the inside out: A path towardfinding and mobilizing
a community's assets. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications.
Latham, A. S., Gitomer, D., & Ziomek, R. (1999).
What the tests tell us about new teachers. Educational Leadership,
56 (8), 2326.
Lein, L., Johnson, J. F., & Ragland, M. (1997).
Successful Texas schoolwide programs: Research study results.
Austin, TX: The Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at
Austin.
Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting
the success of Latino languageminority students: An exploratory study
of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 315340.
Lucas, T., & Katz, A. (1994). Refraining the debate:
The roles of native languages in Englishonly programs for language minority
students. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (3), 537561.
Maroney, O. H. (1998, January). Who is teaching the
children? More trained bilingual teachers are needed for excellent education,
IDRA Newsletter, p. 6. San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development
Research Association.
McCollum, P. (1999, January). Breathing new life into
language assessment. IDRA Newsletter, p. 3. San Antonio, TX:
Intercultural Development Research Association.
McLoed, B. (1996). School reform and student diversity:
Exemplary schooling for language minority students. NCBE Resource
Collection Series. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
Milk, R., Mercado, C., & Sapiens, A. (1992). Rethinking
the education of teachers of language minority children: Developing
reflective teacher for changing schools. Occasional Papers in Bilingual
Education, Number 6. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González,
N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach
to connect homes and classrooms. Theories Into Practice, 31 (2),
132141,
Moll, L., & Díaz, R. (1985). Ethnographic
pedagogy: Promoting effective bilingual instruction. In E. Garcia, &
R. Padilla (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning
mathematics: The psychology of education and instruction. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaurn.
Montemayor, A. M. (1997, September). The nurturing
of parent leadership. IDRA Newsletter, p. 13. San Antonio, TX:
Intercultural Development Research Association.
Moss, M., & Puma, M. (1995). Prospects: The
congressionally mandated study of educational growth and opportunity:
Language minority and English language learners. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Ogbu, J. U., & MatuteBianchi, M. E. (1986). Understanding
sociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. Beyond
language: Social and culturalfactors in schooling languageminority students.
Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California
State University.
PeaseAlvarez, L., Garcia, E. E., & Espinosa, P.
(199 1). Effective instruction for languageminority students: An early
childhood case study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6,
347361.
PurcellGates, V. (1996). Process teaching with explicit
explanation and feedback in a universitybased clinic. In E. McIntyre,
& M. Pressley (Eds.), Balanced instruction: Strategies and skills
in whole language. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon.
Robledo Montecel, M., Gallagher, A., Montemayor, A.
M., Villarreal, A., AdameReyna, N., & Supik, J. D. (1993). Hispanic
families as valued partners: An educator's guide. San Antonio, TX:
Intercultural Development Research Association.
Saunders, W., O'Brien, G., Lennon, D., & McLean,
J. (1998). Making the transition to English literacy successful: Effective
strategies for studying literature with transition students.
In R. Gersten, & R. Jiménez (Eds.), Promoting learning
for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building Community in
Schools. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Publishers.
Solís, A. (1998, January). Showcasing exemplary
instructional practices in bilingual and ESL classrooms. IDRA Newsletter.
San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association.
Tikunoff, W. J., Ward, B. A., van Broekhuizen, L. D., Romero,
M., Castaneda, L. V., Lucas, T., & Katz, A. (199 1). A descriptive
study of significant features of exemplary special alternative instructional
programs. Final Report & Vol. 2: Report for practitioners. Los
Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
ValdezPierce, L., & O'Malley, J. M. (1992). Performance
and portfolio assessment for languageminority students. NCBE Program
Information Series. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
Villarreal, A., & Solís, A. (1998, January).
Effective implementation of bilingual programs: Reflections from the
field. IDRA Newsletter. San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development
Research Association.
WongFillmore, L., Ammon, P., McLaughlin, B., &
Ammon, M. (1985). Learning English through bilingual instruction.
Final Report. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Zahler, A. M. (1994). Working with English language
learners: Strategies for elementary and middle school teachers.
NCBE Program Information Guide. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse
for Bilingual Education (19).
