|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
CALIFORNIA HAS A LONG HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND CONFLICT surrounding the education of students who come to school speaking a language other than English. This conflict has been evident since before the 1960s, when the federal Bilingual Education Act was signed; presently, state legislation specifies that instruction must be overwhelmingly in English (Unz and Matta-Tuchman, 1998). In June 1998, California voters approved Proposition 227. Authored by businessman Ron Unz and elementary teacher Gloria Matta Tuchman, the measure called for all students classified as English Language Learners (ELLs) to be placed in classrooms designed to provide intensive English language instruction for one academic year before placement in mainstream English-only classes. The intensive English language program, called Structured English Immersion (SEI), places the instructional emphasis on English language instruction at the expense of other content areas for one to two years. This plan is based on an English-only ideology that denounces the use of any language other than English as a medium of instruction in the public schools and includes a provision that allows parents to sue teachers and school administrators for using Spanish as a means of instruction.
Proposition 227 does not specifically state that teachers must speak only English or have classroom materials solely in that language. However, the end result is that teachers and districts, fearing lawsuits, reprimand, or public pressure, increasingly focus on English-only instruction in California schools. Most recent California statistics indicate that the percentage of ELL students in English-language mainstream classrooms has continued to increase each year, from 29% in the post-227 year of 1998-1999, to 37% in 2003-2004 (California Department of Education, 2005). Enrollment in other mainly English settings (e.g., SEI) remains steady and enrollment in alternative courses of study with primary language instruction continues to drop. Beyond the implications for instruction, many ELLs are also facing issues of language loss (Macgregor-Mendoza, 2000).
Although there are varying arguments about how English-language learners can best learn to speak, read, and write English (Baker, K., 1992; Collier, 1992; Cummins, 1994; Krashen, 1994; Rossell, 1992; Willig, 1985), proponents of bilingual education have long stressed that the use of primary language instruction facilitates second-language acquisition (Cummins, 1994; Krashen, 1994; Ramirez, 1992; Thonis, 1994; Ulanoff, 1995). Studies in California alone (Krashen, 1999; Krashen and Biber, 1988; Ramirez, 1992) have demonstrated successful academic achievement for ELLs who have had the benefit of properly implemented bilingual programs. Other studies have reported similar success for students outside California (Collier and Thomas, 2002; Willig, 1985).
Even though ELLs account for over 25% of the public school population in California, between 1998 and 2001, bilingual instruction for ELLs declined by more than 50% (Garcia and Curry-Rodriguez, 2000; Rumberger and Gandara, 2000; Ulanoff and Vega-Castaneda, 1999). Before Proposition 227, 30% of ELLs received bilingual services, and yet not even 20% were instructed by fully certificated bilingual teachers (Cummins, 2000: 26).
This decline in ELLs receiving bilingual services continues to grow. California schools have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of ELLs enrolling in bilingual programs. From March 1998 to March 2001, the number of ELLs in bilingual classrooms where academic subjects were taught in the primary language declined from 408,879 to 167,163 (almost 60%). As of March 2004, the number in such programs declined to 126,546 (69.9%).
In the 1970s, in an effort to deal with California's growing linguistic diversity, teacher preparation programs began to design courses and curriculum to better meet the educational needs of ELLs. Since that time, the State of California's teacher education programs have gone through a number of iterations. Until recently, the California Cross-cultural, Language, and Academic Development (CLAD) and Bilingual CLAD (BCLAD) credentials have been available. The CLAD credential prepared teachers to teach ELLs in English, with a focus on understanding both cultural and linguistic diversity and the ability to use strategies that help ELLs access the curriculum in English. The BCLAD further prepares teachers to teach ELLs in their native language while they are learning English. Although BCLAD programs are available in a variety of languages throughout the state, most of them prepare candidates to teach in classes with ELLs who speak Spanish. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) is the chief regulatory agency for all credentials issued in the State of California.
Though many people in California speak a language other than English, bilingually credentialed teachers have always been in short supply (Cummins, 2000). As the number of ELLs continues to rise, schools of education are faced with a dilemma regarding the supply versus demand for bilingual teachers. Many districts prefer to hire bilingual teachers because their bilingual skills give them advantages in terms of interacting with parents and students, but statewide credential reform has intensified the shortage.
In September 2001, the CCTC adopted new sets of standards to govern teacher preparation programs. These standards were adopted pursuant to legislation known as Senate Bill 2042 (CCTC, 2001 a and b). The intent of the bill was to align teacher preparation programs with state-adopted academic standards, infuse teacher performance assessment into teacher education, and establish induction programs. The change also reconfigured the CLAD certificate to "infuse" the content into the base credential. SB 2042 did not include guidelines for the development of BCLAD programs.
Many supporters of bilingual education contend that the SB 2042 standards were not adopted to meet the linguistic and cultural needs of ELLs, but instead served to satisfy a few English-only ideologues on the California State Board of Education who were quite vocal concerning bilingual education (Ahlquist et al., 2004). Immediately after the passage of Proposition 227, board members opposed to bilingual education attempted to rescind a policy that allowed school districts to seek waivers to continue the implementation of bilingual education (DeFao, 1998). One board member, who attended many of the SB 2042 planning committee meetings, retired from the California State Board of Education when it became clear that her anti-bilingual education stances had damaged her chances of reappointment. This reductionist treatment of bilingualism is also evident in the removal of the words "bilingual" and "culture" from official state documents (Katz and Kohl, 2002; Sleeter, 2003).
Although there are no BCLAD guidelines to date under SB 2042, the Education Code of the State of California guarantees the existence of bilingual credential programs. In April 2002, CCTC issued a coded correspondence that allowed for the continuation of BCLAD programs under the previous Ryan Act authorization. (1) Teacher education programs that had an approved BCLAD credential program before SB 2042 could continue to issue BCLAD credentials. Institutions of higher education without approved programs could not initiate one since they lacked regulations to guide the process. Faculty members charged with creating new credential programs in 2001 and 2002 were told that BCLAD guidelines would be forthcoming, but as of mid-2005, the design team responsible for guideline development had not been officially appointed. Indeed, the call for nominations, first issued in 2001, was reissued in June 2005.
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of SB 2042 credential reform on the preparation of prospective bilingual teachers to ascertain whether the new programs in public and private universities in California adequately prepare new bilingual teachers to meet the needs of ELLs. The guiding question for this study is: What are the programmatic changes in the preparation of BCLAD teachers as a result of...
|
