Editor's Introduction

Since the Bilingual Research Journal moved to Arizona State University in 1998, our corner of the profession has survived two attempts to eliminate bilingual education. California's Proposition 227 was enacted in June 1998, and Arizona's Proposition 203 was approved by voters in November 2000. The full weight of these dramatic changes in policy has yet to be felt or fully assessed. These two very similar propositions are an attempt to outlaw bilingual instruction in the two states. They are aimed primarily at those forms of bilingual instruction designed to serve as bridges to the acquisition of English.

While the new law was loosely defined in California and allowed individual school districts to choose the type of program they wanted to utilize, the Arizona version of the initiative is much more draconian. Proposition 203 leaves no room for loose interpretations or choice; unless successful legal challenges ensue, English-only instruction will be the norm in this state.

Supporters of bilingual educators have not been uniformly successful in deterring such attacks. On the one hand there have been cases of effective organized efforts against such attacks. This was the case in Colorado where the initiative was successfully kept off the ballot. Further, the media have become more responsive to the growing evidence of scholarly research and academic discourse in support of bilingual education. The growing involvement of researchers and others who contact the BRJ as contributors or consumers of information is heartening. The demand for information and scholarship remains very strong. It is in this climate that we bring you the latest issue of BRJ, the 12th installment in 27 months since we assumed responsibility for the journal.

The lead article by Michael Brunn explores issues of language policy, or, more accurately, the lack of a language policy as it concerns the needs of Mexican migrant students. Brunn asks, "How does a school's language policy function to separate and integrate majority and minority cultural groups?" The author interviewed teachers and administrators only to discover that, for the most part, a school's language policy is not an effective means to help assure student success in achieving recognition and acculturating into the school. Brunn further found that the language policy was incapable of addressing the social and academic needs of migrant students. This is an important finding, because if language policy does not bring about some form of amelioration for migrant students, one must ask anew, "What will?"

Stephen Kucer and Cecilia Silva investigated the English literacy development of bilingual (English/Spanish) students as they transitioned into English literacy within the context of a whole-language classroom. They look at literacy through a series of measures including pre/post-reading miscue and retelling analysis, holistic and analytic writing analysis, and spelling assessments. It appears that this particular diversified manner of looking at data was able to produce results suggesting that literacy development may require differentiated mediation. These are very interesting findings.

One of the most compelling needs in our schools today is the need to communicate more effectively with parents of children with learning disabilities. In the third article Torres-Burgo, Reyes-Wasson, and Brusca-Vega examine the perceptions and needs of both Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents of children with certain disabilities. The focus of the study was to determine if and how the reported involvement and perceptions of Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents differed. The study was conducted in a large urban school district with a culturally diverse student population. The second goal of the study was to suggest ways in which the school personnel might aid the involvement of parents. This type of research helps schools directly with the populations they serve and also helps parents understand their rights and allows for a more positive school-community interaction.

Raquel T. Anderson looks at the loss of gender agreement in the primary language of bilingual (Spanish/English) students. With a concern for heritage language loss, Anderson specifically narrows her investigation to a longitudinal study of two children, examining particularly their use/loss of noun phrase gender agreement. Her results suggest that these particular children may be vulnerable to language loss. However, these losses may be due to factors other than language learning deficits. Possible reasons for the observed patterns and directions for future research are presented.

In the next article, Sharon H. Ulanoff and Sandra L. Pucci report on an interesting experiment with L2 learners. The research compares two methods of instruction. The study compares the gains made in second language vocabulary as a direct result of different types of literacy lessons implementing two bilingual methodologies: concurrent translation and preview-review. These types of comparisons are rare but should be conducted more often. Ulanoff and Pucci's results are interesting. The results not only indicate that the preview-review groups outscore the concurrent translation as well as the control group, but also demonstrate that the concurrent translation group was the lowest scoring group among the three. The implications of this research should be important to those working directly with ELLs in the classroom. Norbert Francis writes an insightful article dealing with the special circumstances of delayed first-language learning and the effect of age on second-language learning. The possible role played by maturational constraints is critically examined from the perspective of relating this to the role of a possible critical period in the acquisition of language. The discussion of this topic brings forth a new set of issues for bilingual educators to contemplate.

In our Research in Practice section, Aida A. Nevárez-La Torre discusses the issue of teacher research among teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students. The main point of her work is the premise that teacher research can provide a useful tool for the empowerment of teachers to utilize their knowledge to promote change in the education of language minority students and, more generally, the entire field of language minority education. The issues discussed in this article come from a group of teacher-researchers in an urban school setting. Combined, they are powerful voices in the day-to-day socio-political and teaching-learning environment of bilingual education. This is important insight for those interested in teachers as change agents within a community of learners.

The book review in this issue is Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP Model, by Jana Echevarría, Mary Ellen Vogt, and Deborah J. Short. In their insightful review, Karen L. Newman and Martha Nyikos explore the issues brought forth by the book. Of particular importance is the fact that according to the authors, content area teachers in America's classrooms are ill-prepared to meet the needs of English language learners. They point out that the author's primary goals are to ultimately improve teacher development and instructional practice in the field of language minority education. The book is recommended to all administrators, teacher trainers, and pre-service and in-service professionals who will affect the learning environments of English language learners.

These articles make it obvious that, although bilingual education as a whole and those who contribute to it have suffered disheartening setbacks recently, the willingness and dedication to pursue and achieve our ultimate goal has not wavered. It is with the utmost hope and optimism for the future of bilingual education that we offer this issue as yet another installment to its growing knowledge base.

Alfredo H. Benavides, Ph.D.
Tempe, Arizona
December 2000

 

Back