Search results

Observes that, in some public schools in the USA, dual language instead of English only is being promoted as a plus and not the drawback it was once seen to be. Stresses there is still opposition to dual language or other languages being used in the US. Reckons that educated parents are the likeliest to seek dual‐language education for their children. Uses tables and figures to show the dual language options and variances. Concludes that there is potential for two‐way immersion to expand.

In this chapter, the author provides empirical research that supports the implementation of DLPs as programs that provide cogitative learning, high academic achievement, and the opportunity to be competitive in a global economy for all students – including culturally and linguistically diverse students – in order to achieve education equity. The author utilizes Arizona as an example of education policy that excludes and further marginalizes language minority students by requiring English proficiency as a requirement to be part of Dual Language Programs (DLPs). Furthermore, the author frames the current education climate and language policy affecting DLPs through an Interest Convergence theoretical lens.

When bilingual teachers are first hired, many say they are pressured to teach material only in English (Menken, 2008). Removing instruction in a child’s native language is not likely to improve scores on English standardized tests (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005), and long term, English-Only instruction reduces academic success and reduces graduation rates (Iddings, Combs, & Moll, 2012). This chapter looks at bilingual classrooms in a Texas school district, through classroom observations, interviews, and a large-scale survey seeking to answer the question, what do officially bilingual classrooms look like when they operate monolingually? Results showed that administrators exerted pressure, and teachers used methods they expected not to work. Some bilingual classrooms had teachers who either could not speak Spanish, or chose not to. Because classrooms operated without the legally required amount of first-language instruction, the district’s “bilingual” programs undermined accountability data while harming emergent bilinguals. Teacher educators have not prepared bilingual teachers for the reality of anti-bilingual schools. New teachers need to know how to not only implement research-based instruction but also defend their instructional choices. Wherever lawmakers, agencies, and administrators have allowed transitional bilingual programs to become de facto monolingual, there may be a role for colleges of education to play, monitoring, assisting, and, if necessary, publicizing lack of compliance. Study findings are limited to one specific district; even in districts with similar phenomena, the manner in which a bilingual program ceases to be bilingual will vary substantially.

In consideration of the needs of the growing numbers of Spanish-speaking emergent bilingual students in U.S. classrooms who are learning English as a new language, this study explores the teachers’ understanding of instructional practice using a specific pedagogical framework designed for emergent bilingual classroom contexts called Preview/View/Review (P/V/R). A constructivist and a translanguaging lens informed the theoretical framework for this study. One set of qualitative data from interviews was collected from a random sample of teachers who participated in a Master’s program in bilingual education in a border university in South Texas. Interview questions focused on the teachers’ reflections on the planning for and the implementation of the pedagogical structure P/V/R in their dual language contexts. Three findings arose from the data: (a) participants demonstrated an understanding of planning for and implementation of the P/V/R structure as a scaffold to build background knowledge of new concepts in the different disciplines; (b) the P/V/R structure has the potential to facilitate cross-linguistic transfer and the potential to be implemented as a form of translanguaging pedagogy; and (c) the implementation of a well-planned P/V/R structure enhances students’ engagement with the learning in two languages. One identifiable limitation of the study is the small size of the sample. In addition, classroom observations of the implementation of the structure are needed to mitigate the possible over-reporting of P/V/R as a good practice on the part of the teachers. Insights from this study inform teacher educators in teacher preparation programs who are preparing teachers for working with emergent bilingual learners and the professional development of all teachers, including those who teach in bilingual school contexts.

A pressing educational concern is how to provide effective education for the growing population of dual language learners (DLL) in early childhood settings. Given the robust findings that family involvement promotes children’s academic success as well as recognition of parents’ “funds of knowledge,” one pathway to provide a culturally and linguistically responsive classroom environment for DLLs is to form collaborative relationships between parents and teachers of DLLs. The purpose of this chapter is to describe Project TAPP (Teachers and Parents as Partners), a community of practice (CoP) composed of parents and teachers of preschool dual language learners. The chapter describes the framework of Project TAPP, findings related to participation, and lessons learned.

The dual immersion (DI) model of bilingual education, which focuses on educating language-minority and majority students side by side using the two languages in roughly equal proportions, is gaining popularity. And yet, students with disabilities – even those who are already multilingual – are routinely steered away from such programs in favor of English-only special education options. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper explores the potential benefits and challenges associated with including multilingual students with autism in DI classrooms, beginning with an exploration of literature related to students with autism who are also multilingual learners (MLLs) (irrespective of educational placement), followed by a small body of literature on the inclusion of students with disabilities in general in DI programs, and finally an analysis of the characteristics of DI classrooms to extrapolate about the ways in which this environment might be both supportive of and challenging for students with autism.

The analysis reveals that DI programs are simultaneously well positioned (theoretically) and ill equipped (practically) to effectively support MLLs who are also on the autism spectrum.

In spite of mounting evidence that being multilingual may advantage children with autism, very little scholarship has even raised the question of whether students with autism might benefit from participation in bilingual programs where academic instruction is delivered in two languages (Beauchamp and MacLeod, 2017; Durán et al., 2016; Marinova-Todd et al., 2016; Seung et al., 2006). This paper identifies practical implications related to including students with autism in DI programs and suggests directions for future research.

This chapter explores the unique issues related to assessing and instructing linguistically diverse children from birth to five years old in early education settings. This chapter provides a literature review of how family involvement aids in accurate assessment of DLLs language development. First, the chapter provides a summary of the importance of assessing DLLs and the related gaps in the literature. Next, there is a discussion of family involvement in the assessment process, specifically the importance of parent involvement, potential barriers, and the educational placement of DLLs. Then a section about bilingual language acquisition is presented to explain how DLLs acquire English. Drawing on the above literature, the authors advocate for a multifaceted approach in which assessments are conducted in multiple contexts and data are gathered from multiple sources, particularly from parents who are extremely knowledgeable of their children’s abilities and language experiences. Finally, the chapter concludes with a review of current best practices to involve DLL families in assessment and directions for further research.

The changing U.S. demographics, characterized by the rapid growth in immigration (Suarez-Orozco, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation are good reasons to prompt all educational stakeholders to seriously examine the practices of educating learners at risk of educational failure. Among at-risk learners, a significant portion is made up of English language learners (ELLs), especially those who are newcomers (i.e., ELLs who are fairly new to the school community in the United States with little or no English proficiency). The last census revealed that immigration accounts for more than “70% of the growth of the American population,” and that “the foreign born-population reached 30 million” (Portes & Hao, 2004, p. 1). Of this group, Hispanic students comprise the fastest growing group, and among Hispanics born outside the United States, 44.2% drop out from the educational system between the ages of 16 and 24 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). For this reason, discussions and debates on the best way to educate ELLs for effective English language acquisition leading to academic achievement in U.S. schools remain at the forefront of educational debates. At the core of this discussion, the question of whether or not to provide bilingual education services to learners for whom English is not their dominant or native language remains as one of the, if not the, greatest long-standing political, ideological, educational battles in the United States.

The purpose of this study was to explore intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that led 28 teachers of emergent bilingual (EB) students to seek a master's in educational administration with a focus on bilingual/English as a second language (ESL).

To address the study objectives, the authors used a qualitative phenomenological design. The authors conducted online interviews with 28 teachers of EBs. The authors used the self-determination theory as the theoretical framework.

Primarily, teachers of EBs were intrinsically motivated to seek the principalship. The authors identified additional motivators that were not found in the previous literature which heretofore was based on general education teachers' responses. Those motivators were, gain advice from mentors, promote cultural awareness, commit to a campus-wide impact, increase awareness of the importance of bilingual/ESL education programs, and foster a relationship with the school community.

Identifying the intrinsic and extrinsic motivators for teachers of EBs who desire to move into a principal position may aid faculty in university principal preparation programs and administrators in school districts to support and mentor these teachers to better serve as leaders in high need schools.

There is little known about intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of teachers of EBs which influence their decisions to change their career paths to become principals.

Teachers’ ability to identify and link content and language objectives is an important skill. This chapter explores how two-way immersion (TWI) teachers with a mainstream educator negotiated the shift to becoming a language-focused TWI teacher. We argue that it cannot automatically be assumed that these teachers have the knowledge and skills to attend to language issues. Specifically, our study examined how TWI teachers in three schools defined academic language and how they integrated language development into their practice through the use of language objectives. Our qualitative study features a constructivist framework using a thematic analysis of our data, which consisted of individual interviews and surveys with the teachers. Our analysis shows diverse interpretations of academic language and increased awareness of the role of language in their teaching and experienced benefits of making language objectives explicit, as teachers participated in professional development. Selecting and designing specific language-supporting activities, however, continued to be a challenge. We conclude that professional development needs to consider teachers’ different understandings and awareness of the role of language in the classroom. We also note that taking on the role of a language teacher may require a significant shift in assumptions about teaching and learning for teachers with mainstream teacher preparation and experiences and may depend on instructional context.