O. _ I 4 | . 0. 8 _ ..8 8 t. .....003: ..0. 0.0. A. . ... 1 a I 8. I 8 8 0080 :8 4 0. .... 0 08 0... 0% 8.00000. . 08 s 0. .0 . p .n “”81“."(8 “nu-.0.”...0 . 3. .0 .08.. ..lvnb..t:.7.. .82."..7 ... 05.00. 0*- ...HW" 404...... ..0 . 0.0. .0 . a . .518: c. 0.8.0.4008”... “sh. ' . .0 .08 0. 0 0005 ...’0.0 8 rd 0’. . v 0 0 . .80... . . 8 58.8“...8010. 8.0 .140. ...-.05 ....IL ... 0..“ ....00 1.. h..... .L....... . -8 8.4.... 48.. . 0. 0’8 .‘ u ‘90.. . . .88- I... 0 . . ..00 '1 .0.. .0 .087 :5... 000 0' ..0 In 0 e808 0L.0\00.:00.8..8..-04. 1'. . . .4 00“! .48. a. .4 4v."-V(‘ . ...)" 00 «00.0”. 890300 . a.“ . ‘0 08... . 0 .... 10.8.8 0. :0 ' .1 . , r ...l‘. 8. 0.0 8 .- .880800.\§ I..40 8. r30... ..0 -. 010' ... ..0.... 08.. 8 .888 ..I .... I “I“.nl'cvu 1:0.0080 8. -0. 0.... 0 2.840.100 8:. 0. 00. ..0.. 0.07. . ..»80.. ’08.. . ...! A... . .4 .. .8 04.. 0. 40". 3008.82 0 C .No... “”30 . f 0 r0. .n .. ...... ...r... 3 «4.0.8.1.... :3... .r... ......-....0 .. .- ..... :r .. .. . .. .... .... 3.0.8.? - ....r L . 8.0 . 0 . . . . .4 4 0 I70 . . . 08 .8 ‘0‘ 0 - 0.0 00.0 .0. . 8 4 080948... 0... _ .0'01.. .0.‘ 0‘8 0067.4 .0 0‘ as .00. 8‘0 8 . 8.. . 0. nus... '1 ‘0. 0. 8 v . . 0.0.8.0... 00800.9... 00...8.- . . . . ..0‘.’ .‘o-YnoutIt . ...0.. 0. . . . . 7....._.........80 .18. .i . 8'. 00.. ......m........ .00...01.0.h.\..8.8.m.0 ...m. 0......l.... . . . . . . . . . .... 389.... ...040. 3"“... . 8 '4' .0 .. 0 . 0 . c . .- . .. .. . 0 o .. . .8.. . 0... 0.~.......P'-.0'.:8.8.11.0..1... 4.. .. ....N..'0....0 .. :0. .0 . . . . . .. . . 3.8.8.8.. 3...... . ...0. .03”. 8.......I.. . .0 l . . .‘0040. $032.00.. 0. . .07.. ‘03.... 7. .4 . ‘80-.9-.... ... ....0 05:09.8' ...80- .. 3......3rvouvu0 ...-...00 .78.. 8.8.'-. 4 o 80-. . ..7 07.90.- .. 8.”. . I0. . l.. . . .-800 . 4- . r 0.! . 4..- . .. .08 00’. o 3... . 0...“. ‘00.... 8.018.000-K00.. 4. .0.-Q0. 0 .0. .8 ... 18.880 0001.08.48.4- ti .8 0.,080.~..8 C... 0.04 8.08 .00 .0 0 ... 0.0 iv '00 0. 7 ..I. 0 .. . 0 . 048 4.4.0.87... 400.000.0008 08'00‘. 00.0 27-9 .0 0 .0.'.... ... ..000. .880 0 (00 0 . I ...-0.7. . . ... -. 3.8: .0 .0 0. .0... .. o ’ 0 0 . .8 d,- . . . . . . .. ... 8.. | 00. 0: V .1... . ..00 . .7'D. 8H0. .1800: .8- ... . - ... 9-..- 0 0.00 ,3 . . . . . ‘8’..n...0.0". 8.80‘ 0A.... 8... .. '00 080. 0. 4. . 0 .. . . 4 ... 8. n . o r . 8. .. r48. .84. 8.. 0 ...... .0. mun-vuauovz .00’. 800 . 0. ~ .‘9... '. :00; .8. ..0” 3'. .4 .. 0. .o .. .. ..04 .8 . O 448...0.8I7'00.‘0.'...I .. .800 . 8-0.....00.¢n '00.. I000 ’80. .00. .88 ... 0 .8..0h00 8 .00.. Knunnflzmfly. 8 “08'0'3000. ..010-7’08800‘8 ‘78 .' ..f'..'0.. . 90.00 .8. 7.. . ..0 .00! \0 Q". 8. 88. . . 0880 00. .8 .0.-.8u.'48 1.0.818 .00 0 .‘I 0. 00. . . .- . .0. 00.0 ... 088-00 .0008. . ... .0.-.38 0 .. v... N 8 '00... . 0.010.330 ' . 4. . ...... ... ...-1 0.80.. . . ...-... 88... .0 0 .0. 00.0.. . .0 . . . . ......0. 0 . 88.8.0. .0!.Q0...'.0 0- .0.. . ..8 .8 . . _ . ..I" .0.. .P 0000-0034.... ... 1' 08.0.00 8 .. ..4: . . . . . . . .. o... .. . . . . .. . . . 'how'Mhn‘ouafi80'... '”:’.'18“0‘0W.0.”.\0H.-q".v.80 . ....ltnsno. ‘04. 0.8 . 00.6.0 0.4. "7. ....8'8ur-W08519'0... . . 830 . . 1’80'0. . . . - . . . . . .. . . - . . . .. 7 ...'IWM8 0 .8 7.09.8SIn8M80N8NW0 1 0 8. 0 8b . . . 88. . 0 . .. . A. . . ... ,l . 0.88 . . .. . 8010....uwhovflwm8uofltb ‘1F0W90888..8.7 . . .. 2.0.0.- 0 .4.. . '.. . ......o. :9... 0 r- .0 8 . . .. 70800..I-0I.4‘.“0 .8: ..m0 0.0.700 . . . . .. .00... '- 0.- ‘o... .050 0 s ' 0.00 . 8 . c. . . . 8 09" .0 '0l‘? .0. .0970 ...-.800. 8.... . 0 0. ..o'l. 0.. 8070.0 00. 4'. .700: . .. . .0 0.0.:0000‘0. 0. 00". '0. ..8 . .0 .u00."00 ”.4 . .8.- .. . ...... ....0 .00. '13... 0.3.... ....0 . ..I. ... 00 ... .. . . ..7: . .........-.- . . 2.21.... _ . . . .... . : . t 0.0 0 $410.. 8 J .0300. .008 .u... .0: ... .. 8.101 998.040-}. . ’.0JU.'....000 . . . . w o . . .- o.- ..8 . ...m... .0. 0p t .Vl-o’l- .8 4.. .0 .000 0 oofl .0... wt 09' 070.0. . . . . . . . . . 8-n..0 40.00 n... 8.8 9'. 8 0 oug. . . 00.... 8 0.8 04.. .0800... 4. 8 .00 I ..000. 00..)h.l.0. . . . . .... 8'91.... ...»004-..... .... ...9. u. ..4..-.7 .n. ...-.27 1.... ”John 0 $8 ...0... O n '.....o' . ... 00.’\.0:. .04 |. .u ..0..0.... 0... ... .0. . 00.." u.. . n 1- .. .. o .0. .. . 0 _ . . .0 . .. 0 . ...0. :- ... .4“. .870 .....flwpo‘. 0.0.0.4. .0 .33... 8... 1.00.. . .. 8.'0£0-.. 08.0.05... .8. .. ... .1.103: ...... 00.80. £0000; . .. . . . a 8:8 8, .83....‘8 I80... 08. ..0. 00001.0. 0 0 '- . ... 0.. 0.00.. .0.-.7 . , 20. ... . .0. . 0.. .0.- .. .08 3004.. . . 3.8!...41 .- 0.... .. i . .....u’......"0.......0-1».0..7.9. .. ..... .0..“8 .. . ... ... . . 0 . .8. 00... 001...: 0.00.. I. . I). , . .00. . . . . . . . .... .08.. .88. 8”. 0r, n. .. 0.0.."kdm. o 3:80. ..0 . 3-fl.80.30'o.!?..3. 0.8.0.)... 5...... .. . .. .... ... 18.. . . '. _: . .. . .. . .. . 2......” . 0... 8 a. . ... .....8 “MN..- .. 8 r . .0 ...-08070 11.000.080.410. 0..I-_.0008'..v. ‘00 .8 09.0 ..0000060 .8.- . . 0... £8. :0 . . a. 9 V. .00 0.00 . 0 . 0‘ 8 8 ovr.8.0.v‘.0‘ . .88 ...-8...}.- u... 0.0 I 8... .0. 7‘}. 0 .‘o40 8.0. 0.8"‘ 8.200!‘ 48800.40. 0 0. ... - .0 0000. . . .0... . '.- .fii “AI-.00, 0 8'3, ‘0‘d 008 0 400 .0. 0.9.0: '0 8. “0%.... ..0‘. .0... .4 .09....008010 8. 0 u 01 .74". 0 000 0 ..8 8 0 0. s. 8 '0. .0... ..00 . u . v. 0880 O0. 0’ 0.0.0003...;. 04.... Jo.” 81.0 .. 0... . o. ..0 . 000,840.00. 0:. v . :0 0.00 08"....08 5.1 4 .r3.00.8.w.0045‘1...0.. 8 02. . .. v I . 40 38.888“... 00.88 c . . 0. .8 .0 . 808 ..03 800.0»... 80.00 50048 unvl'nuhwn'tunnu.t..1i . n .0 89.00300 .204 u.'l....!:... . ., .. . .- .....0... . t'IJn‘hr... 37:..83Han. ... .... . 8 C 0 ’38! .... 00....) .. .c . - . . . .. . _ . . . . . . , . . . 0 u I. .0.! N. . 04.... I . ...: ...0 h Longu‘d. 0 . 0 us... .. '8 ..‘0'...0.00¢n. .. r0. '. 0 . .. ..JW‘.“\1£79I...0 . . . .. . .. .v 10:... .. .....1... . .. . . . .. . :0... . ...:0..04..8.3. ”8 n 3 .“. 9‘03 .08... c. .0 7008009,.‘0 8 0' 2.00‘0 90 .0 0 0 809. a. n 000. 080 o 000 ‘00 00.. a 808. .0.-00000 " . . 8 . . . . . . _" .0278... .. 7088'. 0. 3'00... 0 0 .0...» 4:080 10.000. 01.3....» r. ..mnol. . 30...... .0)... . . .0373.- .4 .0. .0. 8 .. .... . 08 :10 I ... 0.00. I... .0. ...-.8. 8.0. 0...... GI. 0. .. p 8. ...9 If). ... ...-0.40.9...5: 9:8..04 .I . ....0088.-...._ . . . . . . .V . I. 00.8.8.0 In... '0 8890 7-0.. 8 8.)0¢. 80.L. .78 060 1.100008 8 0. 0405!. l8.D.2 ..O 8.00 08400010. .‘V‘.’ 0.! 7.0010 0 . 0 8. “...-0.00. . .‘Q' 0 ...., ... u. 0 ..P- ' I 40 8 .8l.0’.. .0008... .8 0' 00‘ .0 0......0' 00 0 .0“- -.00 . 40... . ‘ri‘xu. 3...). 9028.00. .08.. .FO0..¥00.._8§0.F.0.8001440. .E.’ ..0 . .88 .. ..80. ..0. ..7'... 0.8- '08.: . 8. .. 0.”4...."-'.....0. 8.4‘ .00 .0“ ..04i-3troc 8.8 0 70.00 0‘ 84. .04 .8 . 0.0000 .. 18.8.... 0 . 8.48.. 084001 9... .0'0 ' ..4 ..0'0. 00... 8. 82 7.00 . 0 u 8 '00. . I 0.. p 0‘. I0........ 8'.- 88 8 08- .. ... 8. ... a . . 0.). .7 1.0. ...-.... 0... 7... ... '....0......8 .... ......8.0.... ......u... .. . . . .9 . ... . ... .0.! .. 00. 70.0 .. ....- . ...! ... ....0.' .. q ....0. ...-.... .0 -..—p.10; ..00.8r.. .0. .....8307- 0.040.. fireruu .1 00...“... . ......0. . r .. . _. - ...0. .0.” .0 u. .9 ... ...... 0-. n. . . . . . 0 ... ...00 4 0... V0002. . ..8:.‘04'...0 .‘3... . . I . 8 . . . 8 0 . . . l 0 0 . . . O 0 .u. .0.-80hhnrflu0 . 00 0.....')’ . .. 0.0000...‘3.."8 0".u¢.¢ 1.8 9 {0. ... 8050. I0. ...I‘ I". .0. r. 8.. . ....007 '00. . . .. . . r «.0 Wu'uflwwg 8..‘80008. . O.- I . . . . . . )ouupv. .0.\8.'0&. "flay-0." .’. ..8080'0uvm040o4...000. .. I 0 - . . . . -!I0. . 0".0. nonofl ‘-..00-2 0. 0'. I .. .0 0. u. .0 .4'0 o .. 0, . . _ .000 .. .8 0' 0. 4 n. . A ..0.8 0. u. u . . . . ... 000. .0 0'0 a .8 48 0 4 .. . . . ... 4"va 0d.“ .0 ..00'008u80an8300”: L'J'kTJV . . ')c 80 0%.-..8 .8880 0p...~48..;....0:... 2.000.... 49.00000. . - .0840. 8040!". ...I....\.. ~00. . . 0: 8 .. . .. . .. .0. .82.”.7... ..00. $030.03.... 8 ’. 0.. 84.0.. ... .. . . . . 0.0....98900n. .... .us..l .Nth,’ ‘8 0'0. 0'. 8 81.0.0' .0.’ '480‘ru“. - . 0 .r .00. 8 . . 1". 8. Q 0' 08 ...?!) '0... 8. .0084 800.0. .0. ...00-040.“ ‘.7000890 .1... .0-04 08). .... ..0.’U-..0 .4 . . . 8. .. .. “13.4 809' . .. . .. . . .. Ar0. .. .‘l .7. 8 ... ...08100. 8.3.8.9... 0.00.0.0-.. - :0. J ...... .WT. ..0' 0.0.7.0.. 00 5.70.8.7," 0:339:80. fun-3207“,- 0. 03' 04 8.... .....nul... ...0. ‘0... ... .. 9. 9 3. ... . . . . .. . fl: 0.. .. 2.105.“: av...) ......8.0 .10... .0000... “00.... 8. . 0.00... . ...0.”07.-LV|.0H0. 8.00... 80.0.2.8;0ut90H8”. 0000.!0 t...0.-..'00....'. 7‘0}. 808007.... 8 ”M09... 0. . . . 8“,... 8.... 0. . . . . . . . .. u. ... . 0.3.0 08003.0 .0 1.90... -.n01l 010.4030 8 0.0-. 00...... 00.. 08.8 0.. 8490!. .c ...... 8 . ‘ a .0. .6 80.. 80.08.0080. .7100. 40.8 .00.. ...-0.0. .. ..0 . ... .2 46.88... .0. . . . . . 8-. ... .. . :81 .800 .0. -. '00.. I. 2 .10 0... \. 0.8.0 . 0.3.0.0 '50... 0.000 ‘88. 0.0000.'.. .000. 0....00I .0010'008 ...-48 00. . 0 -4. . ... . . . 0 no...“ .0.“00.. 8v 0. . . .88.)" Z Ivur... -\ 8... 00. 048..- . 04 .0... .....840..0.U . 0» 48.0. .0.. 900'. .0000 1.9.3..“ ‘00-'00: 1,3408...008 ’90.» .l.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. o 0 8.0.0.0”. 8. 0. ...0 . 78.8 ...0auv0 .... .0- .8 0. 1.0.80.0. 0. 0 “-0.... .13 0. 0.00 E .040. H. .80 . 03.80,: 8.....'0.‘0.u....0.0.1...88-9:.I80 04 . . ‘01.”. . 0 a”? .. . . .)..,n8.-0..'-00!073.0....... 0.)”)! ...:..w.!9s.o~: 80. .9. .1...an ' 0 .000. .8 'll- ' .004.I.00..I 0 .0. WV~... ‘30. Vilnnthoa ‘0 . out... 30 O 0 .184 .58. .;.~84' I. 0. a ...0-1 ...000 v.- .. ...,t.’r.‘0.00.0 .0. 08M...0.00. "00'...on- .n.800.0 380.808; ..Iftfln - 0088,. ‘Hog 0.0.0. ......40? .008..000.."0...0w0. 371......905 3,“. .4. . . . .n’. ....I 0. 0- o r. .8 . 8... ..4 0.90100 ......8 0. w.:. l. .943. .- 004080000‘:...00$.0 :0 ' 0 7.7.. 8.80 ...0 ‘. 0. .‘ 0 . 8 I . .. . Q . ..I .0.}.... ...LVJq',0.T- 0 .0.-0.0. v9.3.- . . 2.07. 800 . - .. . ... 030-. 4.2.). . Mu... - . $008.... ...-w... ......u..............h... .... ... . . :0... .....207: .- a . .. I. . .0... . .. .. . . . .... .. .. s . ....ou... ...1. 0:30) . “0.0... “80.0.08 03?“.tt... 0 8 . ...u0...u.0'8 31.300.10.704 - . .0 I', 337.003.-. 70.0.0. . 40-0. :9 :0 .99... 8.. 0.! .. 0 . . .. . . 0'9 0 .00 0.2.0.?0583 u. '05.... 20.... I...’ -.. ...-7.0.00.0: .8040. 0.8.8.0I8ufi... . .. ......r’ .34.)“ ..- .... . . .... .0.-.8...N.“10M07..«n.0. ....00|. ...Vu0 “.3001 .01.“!7. 0H '9'.)'.).. ....m a u - 00 ‘ 0 .l' 004’ c . . a . .1.“ ....c..z.0...... . . . flung??? - «.0.... .. ..u... ......d .. .....r...-..... ...... z . . f1». . .. ..ku; ...-.... . 4.. . ..0 l: 0.3 . .1 z : .... 8. .uo. 0.. 9... . .010 8... 00.0. ' ..08 00' ..0. 8 .8 8 00- 000 0008 .. . . . '00 . 0 . (Km, .0.! .0. .500“: oouolw'93-0039 .0.". . . 8.10.8202... 0.00 .. . 0 0 ..0 8. -- 9 . .8 .083” .14 00.040 0038!"? .300. 048847800740: - '.00 0800‘. 07.000. .0... I... 1008“. 0 . _ . 0.8. v 00' .0870... ... - ... .00 O .000. ..00'.’-. 0.00 . .0 0.0 840.. ' “808.0 002. .0 0.0.00. -.. .00r000'..'000.80'800 080.. . u, 0'0 00 ..0 004.70.40'. '80-‘08.0.08 ‘00 . . . . ... ...4 .0010 . . '. s I . . . . 09.224 . . ..0‘.4 0 :- .... ...“.Marb’ww .pa 6 . . w. '0..0.n...uu00.00'0'u8000098‘ in... '8 . . . . . . . .. 0.0.080. 1 '4 0 .. 0.. . 0 00. 4 ... . . .4. 0 .8. . u n .‘001.‘...... 1.0.10.2. 2.00084 .... .18 ......01 00.. nlJfilI 0‘8. .r" .026... ,9. li‘rcf 0 :..£'..... . . . . , . . . .. 3.00.7003 3.0088. 00:7. .. .- . -..... ... 0. . ... ... ..0- 4 .080... ... .... . ... 88.“ L’s-.00! 0‘9 ... . 0080 30.0.0.7 00- 031.90 '0 . . . . . : .. .. ..1 ... ....0 00‘ 8.188 .vvf00. 08.8 '40! . . . ‘4 .-. 40. ..., .0.-1'08} "fi . . . .... . “9w... 0.. .00... .u .0.. 00 '. ‘4 0 . 0 r' 0 .. 0 00000300.. 0 0.0. ...-00 70.08 .30.. .. . . . .... . . 00.0. 81. 0.41.0.0: 0:00 ..- .8 .0‘ 8 0 8 x0 . . 0.0".00'; 9.0.. .. .180... 30.40 8 . ... 20.. . .8 .... ...0. .. . 00.30 .. u I. I .u. 8 :00 180.17.8'0 . . . . . - \0 .0 .0 ..0 08.. 80.0.0‘ 0<."0 ...... . .. . . .0. n «...-0.- L01.... .m.0. 7:00.08. . . . ... .c .0 .0.. 9' a 0. ..\.-.0..9 .4. O .0. 02-. I. :0. 0., . fl‘. .0.?‘40V0 :07. . . .0.... ...8. .... ....- 8... . 20?"... n... . .. ....-. . .. . . .... 4‘0... . C. .4 . . 0. .8. .- I’I . . 0.40 . . . . . . . .. .0.0 :0 4. V. 0.0. .0 .0. .00. ......" 0......2. .0.-148.0134. 600.0. I .V 2' .. ..C. O . . . . 0 . «U0 . 08 3-0 0 0 .. .. ~ .8 70.005.00.73- 08.. 0 4 10 ......8‘0'. ..8'r . n .....18. . .37... 0’ . 5:08. 0 On»)... 0. .9, .77....09-0 I -. '540 . 8 .. 2...... 9100.000 . 8... .. ...” 0.1.7.“... 0 . 0... ...... 0.7 I .0W' ' ... . . . . 000.03.00.00 0. 4. ...dL . . ' . 0' . . . . u . 8 0 . _ 9.0. ... . . 0 '0 . ...009..8.I\ru0.00"800z:i.0708.l ““80 8-bo..0* O 9 .0 ....Qvno8 0.0 .3 .. z.- 500 3.7.000. ' 8 0. . 809-98... 8. . .0, 00.8 00.. O ‘Q0r 8' 0 . gfluflua. . 0,, 080 :0 ......wa 0.0. a.” . 0.3.1.). 40... ....I. 4:08‘100- .- 404 .. . . . ..I .0.. 0 u. . . . 0: OD g’.‘ 8h ..0-0 9 ..l 384' .0040 -... 9...... .. 0.. . -. ...4. . ...... . a .. . ..kw...0§ fl}. 0' 0...I.'0\'00'\..3.0 '4 n #10:. .... '9 ... .29... 8.. . ... 8. a L... .....1 S 40')? .3094 .I: 3... p 0 9 ...?WJ'.“ en lo ..08 808 . 808...... . I. . . . _ . ..(20-0 .... . . ...8 0 . 0.008.. I0. .0 .\8.00.00.. .0.}:8 I .0 .0... .. ...0. - . . . . ..00. . . .0.. .00'....4. ....400. 1.... .00‘00050 I... u’i03.‘o ' LK.IK'..\'\8. . ~ 00' ..0.08 140 . 008 8 . 8 4.00 088.8 0 0.. . . . .' . ... . .. .w 7000549.. . .0 r .0_“. 0.01 0 .00'. 98.0.0800 ...-0'07...‘ .. 0. 03.0004 8.1.8.0. ..0.808' 3.0.0‘00000 . . V.)- 00 09.5.7. L 0 0 8.08.3».- .. 0 000 8. 0 .4. 0. . :0-040.8.40 _ ... . 0 .0 0. 8. ... 84. .704 804.0-v1 0000.". .1L00r:’.‘881.0 00;. r. 0 .. 00 .0. A ..v 8. . 0 . . 5.0.0. .0... I. .00... 3'8 0.8.8:.0‘...088 04!“.88418 00000 I.00.: . 08. 30.08.... 2:04. ...-.....- . .... . . o. 0’0 . ...000l'..I-8000 2.0.8.8.00...'1 3.000 08.01.. .. . 9... 18’?" n... 00.0. r .....0010- .00. 08008.10! $.30}: .0" 0'3. '90.. .. 0 0.00.00. .. .82... 0'0 .....8. o 0 00. . l0.1 __ . 48. £88.). .0. .0. .4. 0. 1.08.811 .' 00. 0... .2000. ...”...a Lhflnqn ...? 30.. ..8 2.0.0. I. I 00. . 1-... . Q .0. ..0 3‘.- .080....00. 0 v4..00.o000...0:8 00‘ P. .0087..0....0-..0 . £7.00 :2. ”an. .8 ..0 0. I 7.0. 0.08... '1. .00... 03.4. 000 (4000 00...! 00.... 7100.0." 0 0. .0 ’0M0.8."v...' .. .W’: 8". ...-“M 'I“‘ 0 . - . :0 0 . 0 000.008 .0 . - .- 0. 9 .0 0 .. .0 O. -' ' 0 u " 8.0. . 8v. 0..'..|0. ooh 7.00.0.0. ' .o C II... 8 0 0 0- 7.. o l . 8 0 “00. “7.00.0.0 0.. .l.0.0 . r' 00 00.09 0. 8.80 . 4,007.08. 0000.0..0-. 0-.- ..800: 790%., 8 0. 400. 0 r 80 o. . 8-00... 180%.: .0.-.... .0...8 ..0 . ... 8..1.00...M..8..J80.. . .... 11.1.30“: . . . .0... .II .0 .. 0... :74 000.0 0. 0 '03: “818-030Iuolnm? .0 Mum‘nh- ufllhlflli. ..UHY-M. .0 ’. ‘0'. . 80..0....I8. 0 8 on, 0.... ...0‘800P0'0 ...... 0!. . ..‘30v’...’.’v. . . . .8. . .J.. . 8.0. 'l'. ...}80 - . 00. .4 .8 ’0..0 4! ....0 . 04 7 . . 0. ’000. . . .. . o 0. ...:- 00'. 0 v0w.l0' .. a. 7‘ 30 00.00 . . . . I. ....70 . $0.00 .0. . 4 .80.’7.8’....0§...44....0'0 “A I.» n. “008' 0V“?0 .000" 20.800. p.00 . .. c 0. . ‘ .....0. 0'. ....l .0900-0.'0v'8 0 l I ... .087... .200. .. .... 9.’8' 8 " '00.. .80 .l. . . 10,.048.')4. .0000.I....00"'..4Ao0.8........ 3.0 . v 20.0.. - .'.00:..... ..8 ... ’0. . .. z ..r. ... .. . . P? .1, . . . I. . -. ..>.4 8 0.8 000.000: 0.. 3'3.‘001.{..'s.0008.0. 8.8 ..0. 1...! 0.....00... 0. .... .. 0 ..0. n. . .lv- .' 00000.00 . 0t. .8. 80.8.80300 . .00... .0r'0..\. ...... 9 . V0.0. .. 2.0.09.9 ..'7 90 0 0.. .0 7.9. , I 0-00.0070 00V 3’. 0.0000. 3 .. ... ..0‘0 .0. .- 0... 7 . n 0 .I’. .. .. ."n..M-|0,..0. :0..- . . 0 . . . 0 I 0 . :3. 0... 0 120:0 .. ...0...-..... ..Yh h... .0. 80 .0.-.37... .I':.. 0.. .0. ...-05. 84.038'.'....10v£ :3“... . . . I 0 70 b.1830: l0. . V 8 . . . ...... .30.. 80....“ .980 C. ...... .n0. . .. ... . .... .80 . . . ..- : ... I u . .8033... .-0 '8’ . .. . . . . ‘..u0.'0.....00 .00150. .. .0... 0.. o...0..0.'.. .’-2.0.. !. . ...-:00 100... .0... . . . . . .030' . . ... .0.. .... ... . 1!... I ..0 .Hl00.lo.r4.0.o.. . . .. . .0 920' . . . . Q 0 6.1 ...0' 0 ..0 ... 80‘. 0.00. -'98‘ 48". 38.4 ..0 . ..1'10800 .. .0 “0-H,” 04. .00.." :80 ...? 0.0.00 08. A . .. ..100. 0 ..r. .... 200.0 "0.87%.... . 08.0080: . 0 .0 . A. F. “. . 0 .1. .8. .... 4.0.00. '80. .0..- ..00 3‘0 . ... 1n 70 . 40.. ..0 . .. CI .. .8 . 0 8.1 u .7 ......1. ...-1.... .. . i...-......r ......é...... . ....N... . . . . . . .0.... : .... ......r. ..3.....-..... 04....-. ...- .. .4 . .. .0 4 . . . 8.. 0 .- -.. I... 0.0 . ' 'Wd .4". 0-0.4'3’80,I'0H08.0 400.. Hu‘.n.'0h0u0n0.!‘...4'...o . .. 4-00.. . - .. . . a ...0. .0 n. 8.98.0 .8“ .. .r..00'. .. II.- D’ .0 ...0' 948.. .0. 0.00. 8.07.7 .'.. 00.1... 'I . a... . ... Q: . . . . . ... . .0 7 3' ...-.00.... . ‘ .80 .1 .4..- . ..l 30.... . .040 .0. .0.. .0... ...»1. .80 . ....C. 351.008.0117". 18.. .. I .0.). 8 ............O. 0. . . . . .0. . 8 0.). - 4 I... :0.‘ .r '0 .0 J. 0.0 .0 , 0.0.1:;- 4 Evan-'00 .... 8.8 02'... 00 '08 0. ...... .0 '0- ..Q“.0.8.0.00 ‘- 813.8‘008 0.33.0.0? .. 0.0 ... .L0 . ...0' . ....4.I40... ..0 . 4.... .. I ... _ : 0. ......0. I . . . In. 0 10 0'30.- ..“ .8 [.0.-.080 0 v .. ...: 2.080 .0.‘ -0000. .. oblfi... 8M0...- 000. ...P. .. 8 '80.. £4.00 .... ..o 3.000... ....0'14003. 8.0.00.0 . , .. . . . .. .4 30.0.88... . . . . “0.. ..I...08. 00.30.... 0.0. ._ $8.930”. ('0' '00 I...- .0008 . . ..0 0. n 0 ... ... . . . 00.. .. 0. 0. 4- .— 00. 0. . Sui 9.0.2.00. 01089. 0.. ...0 . . . .. .. . .. . .. i, . ._ . .. . . . . . . .L. 0000.90 .0'3.7. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . ... . . , ...80'810'0 £00.3'0.1'0'0o0.1....8....8.'l. .. . ., . . . . . . 0.0.0... ..I'.. 0.}. :0. .030 I... .0. 0.00.. .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 8'1 . . 00.. 0...... ' ..0. [...-8.... .0... .....88: 0' U. ...... 0.0.0. . . . . . . .. . . ,. . _ .. . . . . . . 8-0:...310 0’: 00: .0 n '0 .7... .0... .. . .8-0 . . .0 0. '08.. 00.04.00 0.... 4 ... ... . . . .. .. .. ..00'. '93-! ... '00. A .. 0-. .. . . I. ...:0...’70.. . . . .. .. . .. .. . ._ ......70... 0. . .0 . . .' . . . .. . . . .. . ... . . . 7. 0.008 -..0.0:V...m0 mv887r.’k“... 8 4 0040 . . . . . . . . , . . 4 . . .. . - . . . 0.0 'l- 0 0 88.80 0 O. “0.8%,“...“u8uo'0. u... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . .. . - . .. .0 . '7". 7000. '. 01:30 \0 800'0'..... . . . . . .. .. , . . .. - .. . .. .. . .. 4 . . . .. .. '...0\II.0.'010.0. 1.0 . . . . . . .. ., . - . . . . .. . . . .. . “-100,.. . 00:0‘8’u .‘V. ...'l . . . . . -. . - I 00ll.0....v 00188010. . . . . '1'00'0 :00 9.0.0700 '0'0 v.0L0l80.8 . . ... ."0..'.\l>.. 0.: p 04' 0. 0.. .. I. .0.... . . 0'... '.. 4... 008.. 00...!0 1809'...480."..HH‘.M001H000. 0.8). .... 0.. .80 . .... 4'0 - '8 .0 Ao‘so .0.! 000 .I . 04 0.8.0'4 ....00 . o 0 . Q4 '38 .0 ... 00 00......08 ..7 . 0 00.. . '8’ . .0 ..0 . I \ u -... :00: .0.. ..“zlhrx .. . . . r . . I 0. ... 0.2.3.0.... .. .. : . . , . . ...: .....0 a .. 0004.048. 00. h .00‘4'40 00 0 v .0.. 80.... . ls) . .0... Lu. 88010....v V 0.. n ..0'... . .... N ' 0...- ..‘V “RICH-0 .0 .. .0 .0.....m0flfl...0.'. .0 “.080. .'0 03:0 8 0 ..00 .0. .. 0' 0....- .. 0‘ .8 . ... .00 708 .§‘80.n.'000400.. 00 . . 7 8. IV), 0. 8 0 7. I . ......00 .- .00..4...0.‘ 0000.0 .8 .. a. .8 4 . .0.\0.0u 0 . V'.‘. 00 1- .".804004_. .0. ....8 . . . ..r I. .99 . ..:M.:.. ... . . 0. 2 .... . M? .m 0......00."'00 ' 0.0 . 3.0". 9- 05 1.0.. 0“ '4'4 0 V... .0 o. .- .. . 0.... 20. . . a. 0|. 40.8.. -'0 0 .....7. b.0080‘...th'.nm a .0 . . , .0. . . 0'00 _. .0.. 0 0.0. .0. 0 ...-00 00 .. 2'. .4... ..000‘0 ’.\ J05 ...'0...o.u.9.......4.1 . . ... .0». :- ... . .... 4. 7. .... 0- . ”201.0”.08N .08.| .. 00000 .L :f .20. 0...‘.\. .0.. r“! 0-0."..8 .‘I $00.0..- . "..'l...a' .’0 '9 ..0. 00. 88. . . ' . 0000. . 84”.. b: 1.88.890. ..0. .03... .I0 (.890. 8197-”Iwn0f.0*3 log-00' . .00 0". '0 0 0".0 .000 .0.. .070 8 0 ...... 0 8.0-8. . . I0 ‘0' ' 0 8' ..- 0 .... I; ..‘0 8...: .‘n. 2;. . .3. l... I... I3... - .0.. .0. .. . ... - .... .-...0. . .. . .. .. I; .0 0. .I .. 0. 0.80.0.5 .78 0(.00.00 0.3.000. . 8.0 0 . .....- $0.... .... 0.. ...: .. . .I:0.0. O . . 4.. 8 .0.. (.104 . 0!. \0.J.0 .01'7. ...' 0 .1101... J .014... 8 .00.!‘0}.4Ir\00. . ......10...08_ ..-0, 0.... \. 7.. 04.0.... . .0 20.00.. 9’J 8 00o.0 0‘”! 228.5,}. - 5.11.3.7. ., . . . .. .. ... -. ...-... . . .. . ..3 ... ......nP. ... ...}... ..0 1... .n 0".00..I.00~ ’0‘. .0 I. (:0 . . .Q . 4. u u" I. a: .7 .- ..8 .. 8.9.8.. .00....(7078 0.. . ...00~.0|9fi.00 0 .8 0.? .2080)" l . I 0 .I . . 40‘.'0-.. , I00- li-l. 8.. . .. . - . . . .8: .000 0'8. - I ..0.V. 8 ... . a. 0 0- 0 8 0 0 00. 0:... 10.3 7'00 0.01070 ‘..0 .0 .00 I .(0 ...-.0000. .4-0. 00 .hr . 9000. 3000.8. 0 0 00.. 9.0 0 0 8 ...‘8. . . 0.08 2 8 08 00 .0 .0 '0 0. 8.00 8 . . . . .0.. . . . ..a . . 0 . .00... ...... 0. 0,0880 ..O..\'0.9.8.8....80. V ... 0. . 0.9. 00... 0 ..00 8 .. .. .....V 0 '37... :- :70 . ......"0 0 0' 0 80. '8 8 0.. I '88 ..0 ' , u . u do . I ' 00.7 ' a 0. . ... 7.7-0 .0 .A 4’0 .08.. 8 '0. II '0 . . . . 0 u . 0 0 s 0 0 - v.0 8 0 . . .8... 0'80- 7 . . '0: .:.I Auhrd0wnfln0; ‘8”904..K8.HU “:8 7.. 8033...”..80" .'..0. .I..! ...0. . . . . . . 4. 4 2'30: . r . . . .4 8.8.30.1.7.‘ 0.5.4.00. .I .0300.-. 0' '3L0r) 18.9.. 0...: 0...- )0 .010 0' 'l'n - 40 do I'll? .3980. .l-.. ...-:00 '1‘ 08'V .0'08 844 \4’.0...04.-. . - _ . . . . .. , . . . .... - .'0 0 0-. . . .9. . ... ..l . 0-..0‘4. ..49'} '. 40..Y'.0.0' ...0048.9 41.7-49.9 Ilr" .1330 3'0 '. c . . ... 8 007-00. 0 0 . . .. . . .. . ._ . . . .. ... . . . .I'o .. 0 40 0.... . . . . . .... .0. '8. .0) ... 78.0.0 008.),3.I‘070 2.:‘0‘8‘ . n. ‘0 18.0470 ’5': .‘0.4.0..3$0;.I.41.. 0.8010. H10 .0.. . . .. . . . . . . . I. 0 . ... I0... «.07. .. ... .. l..|0'..'0.. -\.1400YI0.'000..800'0|4.090"') 31.....9 31000300.. . .. ......r .0.. 0. .0 0.20.. . , . . . . .. . _ . .. . . . 2 ..q . . . .. ...-.00.. '..0\ 4- 0.. 'o. .V x..0 80 .0.-80000. 00.0. D. '97.. 'V 0 .04.: ”8 00...... 3.00.8’!.. 9.01042..- . 0 0 I o. 0- 0.0 . '0. .0.0..0. 0'0. '0 I'. .. 1' - ..N .0 0-.080.0.7‘. 800800 0.: .80 04. 7 I.' #1.... . ... . 0.. 04:0. 33.00.. .000 Y o '8... ... . '4 8 0 0 .0. I -00 1.. .0 884.00.. T 48. . .0. ... a: 024.0... . .8 80 .00 0?..000 3'00 '0 0 '8... ......f 080.19.... 2 . .I. . .. . .0... .... . o . 0...! - ..D. 0 00 0 f ......o 0. 0 ... ...70 .70 8 \8. .fiau 400 ..0' 14‘. .00.... ... . n94...u. 8.. I. .u . Lr'!.. iv 9-0 . .. . .8... - ... . .88 0 ...: 70.4.) .0. .9 . 0.00.601... 38...... ' ':0£'\| 0. . ..00... 018.4 . 300.... .. 0. .0....8. 0 .40 0. .11 a . 00.. .00 o .0 a 0 I '0 .cv. ' .0. 0'0. .4.. 10".! . ’0 0.800V’.00 .7 .08.)...0 Q ..0'0 ...00“. .0‘u.0..00000.0 .fl-‘ 8800' {0088.0 0.."" .9 10 ... .8. 0'0 . 0r. .0! '. 0 ll. 80,07 0' .I .{89‘7‘ ‘7’..."‘O90-§ - .00 0-}. 0.00. 00.8 . .0 30.00,... ‘0. . 9 4" .0. '00 .. 80. 8 O 0 . 000.00P00r0'70 00......04 .0370... .0...\. 0 I!!!" ,0 .0 .4: a. D .0. . 0 00 0.18.908 . 80 . ... 8 .4... 80800 0.}. . ... 0 o :0 4 . 00 . 2 08 0- .0 70.0... . .... 48 4 0' "70 00090.. '8'- ; ' 0 z..vtl ..0. 008 u .3...- 088'. .0 0 0 '. 80-80.. .— . u. I. 8 ..r' 084 . .... . 0 8. . -. ... .... . .,.- \ . .... . J 0 . . . . .0.! I- . . . .. .'..'0 3 - 3.0... .00: C0 1““. .. r.o...0r7 ..- ‘9’.... . . ' u. 80. .0 a 90-1.... 0.0.! 7W .8 0.. ' 4... . . .18....0. 0 80.. J 0. 8. . 0200...... .10 ....vi..:..’..:. 034 4.3.0.3.}... L 30......08 .8“...4L.. . 280.....0..’9.-00. 0 . 0 0 !. -0 .4 .... .7: .82.... “.0 ..u . ..I'Wul"! . ..1. ..I... . .10..“ ... .0 \ .80 .1... 1:... 0.... v 0. .... . . . ..0I.-I.. ...... 0' a . . .. . . . . . , . . . . VH0... . . .0.. 1.” .... . . 0.0.. . . .. . ... .30.... .I 0.. .0. .0. 11... 3.0.... 00 ' IN .0 .0. ..00. .. -0.-9...? . 8.0 . . ..00.."...30.£.. : .18.! . . . .. . . . . 4 . . . . . .. : .. . 3.000.. 0.... H. .0' 008 why: 00.00 . . .. .. .. .0... ...l4.0 0.00 .0.. 3.3.0- - ... 0.00.7. .. .0.. - ..0'0 ... .8. ..I.....‘0.9...'...: .88. . 4 . . . . . . . . _ 31.0...0... ....... 00 . 4.0.8 .. .500" . . ......a... ...-: .08...) ...0 . 6.00.0 '00: 0.. 0 00.0. I 00031-0 ....0-01..4 ...8 .. .. . . . . . .0 0- 0 01100400. . ..10 .. s .' :.0.'. .7 .... tel! .... 8'81..- .. .. 80000303.... .. 0-0.. I .0.-.051... 1.0 £.'... 8.0 u 0’0 .04.? .0 .. . u 08.0 0 0.80.9.9. I. 0. 0- 8. I '. .. 010'....'...- .1 .... 98 I... .008... 7...... .. 0:03:08. .0 . ...T. . ... . . . . . .‘wll...u. .. I.I..' . 0.0. ...00' 0 . 8 '0' . .I0 '0 \T P.0'9...‘ 8 )' .00‘8000 -... .' 0'39’80 . .0.; 9 4:00. 00 8.. 008 O ... 8.0.0, .000‘ 4. . . ... . . . r - .00 a ‘- . 0 o. 40 >00 0 00.07 . . '0. 07'0" 004va 100.. ... 8 .'l .. .8 8 .0 . 83...... .00 '10. .400 '09:; . .. . . . . . . . ' - . I' n on '8 ...v-V I._.0 0 0 0 0.8.07 .... '04...€ . . .... .090 . ... .... l..’...0|..0. . II. 0. 0.0.1... 0.91.. ' . 00.0 1‘00. . . . . . . . : 8 ll 0 0' I . .. '0 H0... . 7".“‘ 80.00.. 8.80, '7.0 30020000 4&9. . . . . 4 . O '9' O. 8.. I 0.00 09m‘ 'I‘t.'.0'l7 . . . 08004 0 "I' 8.8 1...”: I4 .0003". ..r‘. m..'fl. . 0.0.0.08 0.0 . : 7 0 - ... . 0.005.080 0'... 0 '88. 880.0, .0., .09 0.00.. 0‘.0 00' .00. Lokr .0) . 'o‘u' . '0 0.. . 0 .07. ... .8 . .0. . .. . 14'0- . 7. 4.0 h .- 00‘ ."l‘. .8 0. «.0 ..-. - ..48‘48o8018 . 000 .' 08 .0 ...‘070: 00.. ~ '7‘... IUHQ .88 ' LION 8.0;! 4.. 0 0 .00 00"" ... . 09.0....1030 3.08.. '0...» o . .0. 4.. n .. ' D 8...: ..01...0.?. (“8.00.10.7- 1 .. ' .0.- .L'JI .0.88:..31A'. .0.... ...-0 8 00007-8: J .0 0 Q. X ' 0000...” n ...-3'. -8 . 0.0.8.; 080N870! 00.... . .l...n”..0.. I... ”8 0.08 .\ .0.. 0 ...... . 8 . - o . . 0 IT... . .... . I . ..‘00'J7W‘0 ‘J000I.0>u ‘L'0'0 9.0 0. ‘1”. ”0100.. 80... 01.0007. 8' 90 o 0 ..0 08 .0312000 ... .0.. 0' :0 9 a : O .... 4.0 .. .0-1 . 7.0 0.0 ‘4. 10“,. .... 4 w. 80'. . .Is....~..'.'. 8.112.281... 18.. 0 .....9.4:-I,.-.. I .. u... ... 0.\I.¢0. 0?... ..08. ..0 ...:‘o..- . .0..- .0... . 0m‘- 0 no. . 0 | 8080 “'0..- .0 ' 0.. - "‘0"90'0'F | I J4. ..'I 8 0.10. .. 07.0 .8 . 00! 00K. .9. .00”. i‘000000 ' .9'90". 0... 00 . 0 0. 8 ' 0-0'. 8 0 7 0 .l 0 .' ."r 00-. - ‘- l' 7 I ' o 0 0 -' 100.40. . O 0. .00 ...00-0 008... 0 . ......8.‘ 044... 0. f . ..4 b o. 0 0. 0 0 ...00 0 It..." .‘0 00.8 0 0 .0 .. f. ... 0..1 _ .0 - .. . . 0- . n .8 . .0. '4 : . a c L 3 I . . ' - . . if. ' . I3 I. 'I ‘ l I ll 3" *‘ESIS 3w LIBRARIES lllll l l ljlllll .l ill lllllllllllll l This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Language Policy and Teachers: The Wider Implications of Changing From A Deficit to a Positive Model In a Multicultural School Community presented by Jan Butler Loveless has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. English degree in WEN (mm M ”r professor Date (Llama 3/?7é MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0 12771 LIBRARY Michigan State Universlty 5-“ PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU I. An Affirmative Adlai/Equal Opportunity Inflation Wane-9.1 LXVC UK NM A l IN A .\ll.°] LANGUAGE POLICY AND TEACHERS: THE WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING FROM A DEFICIT TO A POSITIVE MODEL IN A MULTICULTURAL SCHOOL COMMUNITY By Ian Butler Loveless A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English 1996 ll‘. ken FEW-slit P.‘ 7 Nu- '- ~ :-~ s” , 3“: acted to a c ‘3’“:‘l; “~- d p. '4' " I \heu Sta}: . "'Izkn Inc‘ud “ ‘ “Q, 43:1,). pr“ inc“ :..;' 1 1“] N. _ "7E3 :, '3» ‘ :‘JCe-gs [w "335.“ . in; , H‘m‘" .3, t l k-qr‘. . L;‘ o . Mm; s“ U ‘1‘». 7 -.. x ”5% - H- t . ”5&5 if s u‘ ‘ ‘ a“ x I; .l" .q f‘ ‘1 \OP‘ ABSTRACT LANGUAGE POLICY AND TEACHERS: THE WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING FROM A DEFICIT TO A POSITIVE MODEL IN A MULTICULTURAL SCHOOL COMB/[UNITY By Jan Butler Loveless In August 1991, a year-round elementary school opened in Fruitville, California to serve Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, a group typically treated to a deficit model of American education. The new principal and her hand-picked staff decided instead to call their students "linguistically Gifted Persons," 3 positive metaphor, because they already spoke one language and were learning another. Upon that foundation, the staff designed the "Garcia Plan," which included: a) no pull-out classes, but immersion in English for all students; b) daily primary language instruction; c) foreign language instruction; d) multi-age, multi-level, multi-proficiency grouping, team teaching and cooperative learning; e) removal of language barriers in communicating with parents; f) process-oriented, experiential learning in all subjects; g) a comprehensive staff development plan that would enable all teachers to be Certified for working with non-native speakers of English and to complete Master's degrees if they chose to continue; h) partnerships with business, higher education, community organizations and agencies; i) school uniforms for both . can“. D 4"| I l' to» a Q i . s .. ‘, 13". ."'} n.4-‘. tan-U Ias;.d\ “ ‘ d ‘\ ' :l A .‘. . 1" Q“ a ’ ea .. 0.5.0.. '5. “I U ALAS. .. . . ......5‘ ‘ \ IMh' IP' his...km.:\x |I\A\. h‘ I ' I \..‘.' . ‘ In...’ 1"}. ..h-’ ' ‘.‘l ' h~ uh. allL l .‘.\uw .m~.. V" _ v- .. _-*_i. "‘". I “1\a:\jtt‘t-Et A "‘1”-.. I _“n‘ H .t I-'. sued \l‘l“ a“? 1 t:.' 'I . v. ' '\ "HI‘V‘~J a. \ H! T" “a. . a. {‘CI't‘u ..rd. ‘ ‘u l; 2 .c aL were Mil ‘D— . ~ «3:. “aw-t. ““‘QHQOI‘. f] ‘H. ‘ .1. “ -‘Nl..| H H ‘\l ‘V g - «em. :--' ' - \“‘;~:. ' u‘ "4 “‘akth “Rn-”- r‘M‘LA students and teachers; j) character education; k) acceleration instead of remediation; 1) primary language instruction for parents; and m) secondary language and literacy instruction for parents. This descriptive ethnography investigated the question: Given the decision of the Garcia staff to call students "Linguistically Gifted Persons," how did official policies influence teacher behavior? Case studies of six teachers revealed that teachers did believe strongly that their students were capable learners. All teachers practiced classic Initiation-Response-Evaluation patterns of classroom discourse, and all dominated classroom interaction, limiting student language output. Yet the teachers displayed many characteristics of instruction described in the Garcia Plan, and all were working to improve. The investigator concluded all were teachers in transition from more traditional approaches; that teachers can change their attitudes about students; that non-deficit models can draw converts; and that school change succeeds more easily with a self-selected staff, a potent vision and a dedicated principal. Copyright by IAN BUTLER LOVELESS 1996 :5‘22 ““0 neVQr To Buzz, who never failed to encourage me in this work, and to Elena, whose vision I celebrate. l ..' t a,» ammo}. .. h ‘ - -u- 1 fi‘ '- SELF) arm QJUWH 3:3: $0" '54. . l “' ‘ M Cid) I ETD-.5 P"- i..~k:~ .c ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Marilyn Wilson, my doctoral advisor, for her constancy and encouragement through my moves in and out of state and my many challenges in finishing this project; committee members Dr. Sheila Fitzgerald, Dr. Diane Brunner, and Dr. Patti Stock for their insight and support; Elena and her staff for their warmth, openness and patience with my endless questions; my former student Cari Chisholm for her assistance in transcribing andiotapes; my friend Dr. Kay Harley for reminding me that the only good dissertation is a completed one; and my friends Judy Isquith, Hilary Ferguson, Indy Stansbury and Chris Redman for believing that I could and would finish this project. Finally, I would like to thank my family--my husband Buzz; my 50118, Jason and Clay Loveless; and my parents, OD. and Jane Butlernfor their orIgOing faith in me and for asking me repeatedly that irritating question, "So...how's the dissertation coming?" I'm delighted to be able to respond, "It's dOI'IE!" vi ..... ..‘ . 4' 1 immune t. The Research “l l ll n mv, .....;-...-3X LIKE". T‘LlCi COXTD. IS lmersm Recent Otter of lmneszar hphcations IO.’ Frai‘lele Points of Lil Conclusions 10? This St .1 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ xii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Background on the Research Question .............................................................. 5 The Research Question ......................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER I IMMERSION LITERATURE, THE POLITICS OF LITERACY AND LANGUAGE POLICY CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY ......................................................................... 10 US Immersion Programs ................................................................................... 20 Recent Observations and Cautions About Applicability of Immersion ....................................................................................................... 31 Implications of the Immersion and Bilingual Literature for Fruitville ......................................................................................................... 33 Politics of Literacy Literature with Bearing on the Garcia Story .......................................................................................................... 34 Language Policies in the Nation and in California ......................................... 44 CHAPTER II THE CHANGE PROCESS AND TEACHER CHANGE CONTEXTS I30R THIS STUDY ............................................................................................................ 48 Conclusions and Implications of Literature Reviewed for This Study ....................................................................................................... 73 CHAPTER III METHODOIDGY ............................................................................................................ 76 Preparation for the Study .................................................................................. 79 Site and Participants ........................................................................................... 80 Interviews ............................................................................................................. 82 Classroom Observations .................................................................................... 88 Other Observations ............................................................................................. 90 Limitations of Data Collection ........................................................................... 91 My Participant Observer Status ........................................................................ 93 vii o_ I ,wgnT'j! 10 “All; ‘ us. eta Colic." "NW ' a...“ 11R“ '1"an 'flr . ”L." \LIPAL “ filament or $ . in: l’mclm I' P'IW v P‘J‘h; I:R\ 3‘11““! - . Thu wink-{TS Or it ling the T: CHOKE Of It, 5‘ ff Duels: Tnad 1' hrs: Ported Ca Ca POTtrait Cl. Triangulation ........................................................................................................ 94 Data Collection, Summary ................................................................................. 95 CHAPTER IV THE PRINCIPAL AND STAFF 'S VISION FOR THE SCHOOL ................................ 97 Statement of Purpose in the 1991 Restructuring Grant Proposal ................ 97 The Principal's Personal Mission Statement and Its Sources ...................... 108 CHAPTER V PORTRAITS OF SIX TEACHERS IN TRACK D ........................................................ 117 Hiring the Teachers ........................................................................................... 117 Choice of Teachers for "Portraits" ................................................................... 118 Staff Development ............................................................................................ 119 Triad I: First, Third and Fifth Grade Teachers .............................................. 125 Portrait #1: Carmen R., First Grade ..................................................... 125 Classroom Organization ................................................................ 126 Classroom Management ................................................................ 128 Sample Lessons: Language Strategies ......................................... 128 Interview with Carmen .................................................................. 137 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 138 Portrait #2: Juana 5., Third Grade ......................................................... 142 Lesson Strategy: Thematic Units .................................................. 142 Classroom Organization ................................................................ 143 Sample Lesson: Math Game—Total Physical Response ........................................................................................... 144 Sample Lessons: Integrated Social Studies, Language Arts and Art ................................................................... 150 Interview—Juana's Pragmatic, Caring Philosophy ..................... 155 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 157 Portrait #3: Paula L., Fifth Grade .......................................................... 159 Classroom Organization ................................................................ 160 Sample Lesson: Geography .......................................................... 161 Sample Lessons: Math and Reading/ Social Studies .................. 162 Interviews with a Concerned Paula ............................................. 171 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 174 Triad 11: Second, Fourth and Sixth Grade Teachers ..................................... 178 Portrait #4: Tammi L., Second Grade ................................................... 178 Elena's Conference with Tammi ................................................... 178 Classroom Organization ................................................................ 179 Sample Lessons: Language Arts / Social Studies / Science ......... 179 Interview with Tammi .................................................................... 182 Second Grade Teachers Meeting ................................................... 184 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 185 Portrait #5: Ilene P., Fourth Grade ....................................................... 186 Classroom Organization ................................................................ 187 Sample Lessons: Reading and Social Studies .............................. 188 viii r"! pf" l\.ua \ ,/. r)‘ -mchIJ-IZUV‘ _ -— I Conan W I l. ' TI e. TR ‘9 ‘- J: ..“E €1.15 ICE ‘r i... . Men le'n'S It D . ‘ .m: 36.523 Revert bi Cal new ‘? \ i m «I D‘. e I .a.en:.\ew~1 Awards The IaC‘Jlf‘t Q Intended C Conclusions 1 :J;’."Tw ‘ Mumnlll .3)le AWLDIOXD ’K\ Cor-l ' H “.1510. K 7.4.. ’L. I ...atieris: n» l.- LuputaSOi‘iS . :3 UH ‘ “-JJLI Interview with Ilene ........................................................................ 192 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 193 Portrait #6: Mike 3., Sixth Grade ........................................................... 194 "Classroom Organization ................................................................ 194 Mike's Meeting with Elena ............................................................. 196 Sample Lessons: Family Life Education, Reading and Science ........................................................................ 197 Sixth Grade Teacher Meeting ........................................................ 202 Brief Interview with Mike .............................................................. 202 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 203 Conclusions About Six Track D Teachers ............................................. 204 CHAPTER VI. TRIANGULATION: OTHER MEASURES OF SUCCESS OF THE CHANGE PROCESS AT GARCIA ELEMENTARY ................................... 208 Interviews re: Staff Satisfaction with The Garcia Program ......................... 208 Parent Satisfaction with Garcia ........................................................................ 211 Report by California State University Evaluators ........................................ 214 Self-Reporting: The First Garcia Annual Report and Parent Newsletters ............................................................................................ 217 Awards ............................................................................................................ 219 The Faculty's Plan for the Future: Restructuring Proposal, 1992-97 ........ 220 Unintended Consequences of Success ........................................................... 24 Conclusions from Secondary Sources of Data .............................................. 226 CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................................... 29 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 229 Implications of Findings for Educational Reform ........................................ 231 Implications for Further Research .................................................................... 23 CHAPTER VIII EPILOCUE ............................................................................................................ 235 APPENDD< A PERMISSION LETTERS FOR RESEARCH ................................................................. 239 APPENDD< B DISTRICT GOALS ......................................................................................................... 245 APPENDIX C MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN GARCIA ELEMENTARY AND CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRUITVILLE ........... 246 APPENDD< D CARMEN'S HANDOU'IS RE: SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ................ 249 ix mm‘nwr .l..\L.5\L ' I|IC1H ELI-1 - Ike-I. ULK .-W\'Hl P ..u.-..\Ll\r .N'n n-.nr\-v \usAknfl -l «A; l 13733 0 $3.33 ALEVA'I EEC) H L‘ Ti Dhl\‘ (‘er ' K'HL‘AB-nu n1 \ku'_ I‘i'fl:\-.\ ‘- L‘Lrll m1 .0 " ‘ “\uml ' “4:0 RBI“ ...M *4“ .- 820m "33;”: APPENDIX E PAULA'S GEOGRAPHY WORKSHEET ..................................................................... 258 APPENDIX F GARCIA PARENT TRAINING PROGRAM .............................................................. 259 APPENDIX G LAMAR ALEXANDER VISIT TO GARCIA ELEMENTARY ................................... 261 APPENDIX H GARCIA PRINCIPAL-TEACHER PRE-EVALUATION CONFERENCE .............. 262 APPENDIX I FRUITVILLE UNIFIED YEAR-ROUND AND TRADITIONAL SCHEDULE ........ 263 APPENDIX J GARCIA ELEMENTARY TYPICAL DAY SCHEDULE ............................................ 264 APPENDIX I< EXCERPTS FROM THE PRINCIPAL'S PARENT NEWSLETTERS ......................... 265 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 268 '.'.'.', n _ AL! 1' Keeuffivr Artie LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Reexamination of Fundamental Principles ............................................... 215 xi ' t l I I N . .i -h' a ‘-:u:t l . allOOl _ :.:.::.-A..eier.: ' ‘Y V.“ .- ‘I so firs-Amer... D - I . 3.... r . fi‘jn- ‘Tt’ Aulkl’d‘ ‘ A "5&9 P933531 T4 2.. fib- u. ‘39, ”xi _ In” to PemuSSI; .335 I. Paula S C Caiclap ”5117.141 “131qu LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - School Logo .................................................................................................. 100 Figure 2 - Acceleration Model ..................................................................................... 101 Figure 3 - Accelerated Governance Structures ......................................................... 102 Figure 4 - Principal's Personal Mission Statement .................................................... 115 Figure 5 - The Garcia Family of Languages .............................................................. 116 Figure 6 - Language Development Specialist Inservice Program .......................... 122 Figure 7 - Helping Students Learn .............................................................................. 123 Figure 8 - Permission Letter, Garcia Staff .................................................................. 239 Figure 9 - Permission Letter: Community Partners, School Board Members and Others ............................................................................................................ 241 Figure 10 - Permission Letter to Garcia Parents ....................................................... 243 Figure 11 - Permission for Research from University Committee Involving Human Subjects ............................................................................................................. 244 Figure 12- District Goals .............................................................................................. 245 I:igure 13 - Memorandum of Understanding between Garcia Elementary and California State University, Fruitville ......................................................................... 246 Figure 14 - Carmen's Handouts Re: Second Language Acquisition ...................... 249 Figure 15 - Paula's Geography Worksheet ............................................................... 258 I:igure 16 - Garcia Parent Training Program ............................................................. 259 Figure 17 - Lamar Alexander's Visit to Garcia Elementary .................................... 261 Figure 18 - Garcia Principal-Teacher Pre-Evaluation Conference .......................... 262 Figure 19 - Fruitville Unified Year-Round and Traditional Schedule .................... 263 Figure 20 - Garcia Elementary Typical Day Schedule .............................................. 264 xii :-... M, I ..‘uht .5 . \ '1vv" at” Figure 21 - Excerpts From the Principal's Parent Newsletters ............................... 265 xiii lmet t1 "“‘W'ifla 6 a m 'clw‘; “He ‘0? £29.33: ' r . \hOfi‘ng EYE ???zm- m - ‘- -‘ 97920.?1 ~‘e . .:‘ J «u STStp I \m . is. to 2‘3" .‘i < INTRODUCTION 1 met the elementary principal I will call Elena in 1990, after I had been visiting the community of ”Fruitville,” California for about a year as part of my job with a corporation. Fruitville was, as I had heard one disc jockey describe Los Angeles, a ”stir-fry wok” of a place. That is, the ethnic ingredients cooked together in the Califomia valley sun, but they remained distinct. The city was no melting pot. A mix of ethnic groups lived and worked (or often, tried to find Seasonal work in agribusiness) within the city, but they maintained carefully Separate housing, even in ”the projects.” Neighborhood schools in the c0mmunity, therefore, had a tendency to be self-segregated into ethnic and socio- eGenomic groups. When I met her, Elena was principal of an elementary school that Served a largely African-American population. Five years of her quiet leadership had transformed a low-performing school. She had inspired a staff commitment to excellence, with resulting positive impact on students’ academic achievement and attendance. At the bottom of the Fruitville Unified attendance statistics betore Elena took over, by 1990 the school ranked consistently in the district’s top five. In addition, the staff had made great progress on their goal of 100% parent Participation in special evening meetings and school events. They were using a Pyramid system to get each parent who participated to invite another. These Stories were even more remarkable when I learned that Elena, an Asian minority herself, had not been the parents’ choice for principal. l he; Q j . lemma we. ' l i . I 5?: emu: i197 F 5"“ ”ens ‘V‘ I chm—5.3“” L“ he: \i = acetate p05? ‘Oe‘. \. '01- ‘L F - . H n t. I ...-I H l ‘u‘x.' F’- : . l. Mme. haw st. rarent m}... ' _ u. aéfi'qvu‘q .. puma. Child Cr 1'"; sh, n ’9 hit {ideas “.I‘La‘ in " o . ' “‘ “m it $014. I had heard these success stories from others before I met Elena. 'I'hen during a week—long workshop we attended together, I talked with Elena at length about her philosophies for working with minority students. An imrnigrant in her young adult years, she was dedicated to proving that minority students could be high achievers. Having moved to California in 1989 from an administrative position in a Michigan school district with much greater financial Stability than Fruitville’s, I was surprised at how deftly Elena managed her SChool’s limited resources and ignored tradition to reach her goals. She told me, for example, how she had discovered that African-American parents would attend parent nights if she served meals from the neighborhood’s favorite caterer and provided child care. With creative budget management, she found money to give the parents what they wanted. Moreover, she had enabled her teachers to Work in teams by solving the perennial problem of elementary schools -no C<>Inmon planning time for teachers. Through a system of assemblies, large group sessions which she taught, and other combined class meetings, Elena freed grade-level teachers for weekly planning. And she had accomplished these cl‘langes while keeping at bay the dealers in the cross-the-street-from-the-school dilf‘ug house, who eagerly sought Elena’s students as customers. Right away I was impressed with Elena's energy and enthusiasm. No elementary school principal in the conservative community from which I had moved would have used the techniques that seemed to enter her thinking quite INaturally. But interested as I was in the success of her present school, I was more intrigued when Elena shared her plans to apply for another principalship. The first new school building in a decade was under construction in Fruitville. It was to be the first district physical plant designed ”from scratch” for year-round instruction. It would also be the first to bear the name of a Latino 4 - I ..H.:. p O 0 tlihH-Dl- Ie. L1,... 0 I Tron} 0 a. n )- Cunt-1‘53 nah‘all I? . "ID“ 3? Ensi- -h “......“ ,gl.) _ J F#-' Sari puE-ou‘. a I K‘FQI . _ ‘ u are a KIM! S C. Mex-1.1.5 ii ......3l.~.&.4 ERIE" e h ‘9“94' ‘ 'M m 3311th r '- l '3': ‘1 Q‘ I | “a H'a“ m IILI‘IG t 33:44:13; 4 ~ IN." I 3%. educator. Yet the school’s location meant that it would serve a predominantly Southeast Asian immigrant population. Few of its entering students would be fluent in English. A former leader of bilingual programs who had lost faith in standard pull-out approaches, Elena spoke five languages fluently. She had earned a master’s degree in linguistics, and had continued reading widely in professional literature about language acquisition. Distressed by the district’s record in achieving fluency in English for speakers of other primary languages, Elena had in mind a drastically different approach for educating these students. Her model would immerse them in English while supporting their primary languages. Listening to her description of a non-deficit philosophy, I had an iInrnediate desire to document the results of her initiative, should she be selected Principal of the new school. Would her approach be successful for students? Would experienced teachers ever adopt her philosophy? She would be cl‘uallenging powerfully entrenched political forces who believed firmly in the bilingual education status quo for language minority students. Would the state and the district allow her to try her ideas? These were among the questions I Was eager to research. Elena’s design of a school program to serve immigrants came at a time of great flux in the nation, in California, and in Fruitville. In 1987, Assistant Secretary of Labor Roger Semerad had commissioned a Hudson Institute study Of the changing demographics of the American workforce. Among the findings 0f the study, reported in W090, were five predictions for the next deeade: 1) ”The population and the workforce will grow more slowly than at any time since the 19305.” 2) ”The average age of the population and the workforce Will rise, and the pool of young workers entering the labor market will shrink." 3 ’lfre women I ~ 0‘ r .755“ 8333.7.) l. iii C43 Silt" lll'Ctg. it"? 1.6"”, n 1' ”ii. ilk'iuk‘lOll L. b 9 o Slat. PI 'i n.1,. “ I | 9 . .. LUTM me be. 'I" «a. 5 ‘ mm? ID 3'8 OTl'. flu... ‘ - 1 ""' N r t . I‘Mlzmanu’l) 0‘ ‘\ 643.. ' errors. other I» ‘m'CA‘L' .l I” , it sh “or? in ' I n, w.“ I h‘k A FHA" indie! Jars 31?.1‘3195, Cuba, ( "Fifi (hills. 6’». NO or ..zf.ue. The once ‘0‘. ‘-., 4 I _ 57M}! ‘i...: k t 'ore ii)? In 3) ”More women will enter the workforce.” 4) ”Minorities will be a larger share of new entrants into the labor force.” 5) ”Immigrants will represent the largest share of the increase in the population and the workforce since the first World War" (Johnston and Packer 1987, xix-xx). Statements four and five could have come as no surprise to Californians. According to the November 18, 1991 issue of W California had been 76% white as recently as 1980. But the 1990 census showed the state to be only 57% white, with the majority position rapidly eroding. In the twelve months of 1989, 836,700 immigrants arrived in California, nearly a third of them from other countries. To sample just two days, October 9 and 10, 1991, the new Californians sworn in as citizens came from Canada, Jordan, Colombia, England, India, Japan, St. Lucia, Egypt, Denmark, Nigeria, Guatemala, the Philippines, Cuba, China, Israel, South Africa, Korea, Hungary, Mexico and Vietnam (Wills, 66-68). N 0 city in the state felt the influx of irrunigration more keenly than I:l'uitville. The once-sleepy farming community boasted a population of 477,400 it} 1991, up from 358,800 at the 1980 census and, according to Time, expected to double before the next one (Wills, 98). A current supervising planner for the City’s Development Department takes issue with this estimate of growth. He Said in a telephone interview (Fung, 8 / 16/ 95) that the city’s growth has slowed dramatically since the early 1990's, more in keeping with W predictions than with those of the popular press. He believes that Iime Magazinis estimate might have been overdramatized based on earlier growth rates. In fact, he added, Fruitville is now experiencing emigration, especially of Southeast Asians. Many of that group are moving from Fruitville to Minneapolis, Minnesota, where employment prospects are brighter and less rancor exists among ethnic groups, apparently because fewer ethnic groups live :: Jr. W. Fr. t V “my Cpl . ' 5-. I ~“D- H‘ ....“ 0 CleK-llit‘ ‘ Bu‘ ' ravens Dunn: ' “5“: V I n...~..on rat. stre l '1‘?K‘ 1h ‘lv; '7‘ “-tx-‘dl la.“ I .1 .....pate: moth-r a.” |: V - tn..- lea: ac L“:"] | nijlfi‘ I." . "“9 Alla WET" . \ #3:»: . {L5 311d their] there. In 1994, Fruitville's city population grew by only 5,000, less than 2% (Fung, telephone interview, 8 / 16 / 95). But no Fruitville educator of 1990 would have anticipated this turn of events. During data collection for my research, I saw how the immigration explosion had stressed the Fruitville Unified School District. The district, third largest in California at the time, served roughly 71,000 students in 1991, anticipated another 2,000 by September of 1992 and at least that many more every year, ad infinitum. A large portion of the new residents were Southeast Asians. They were following their relatives, many of whom were US allies resettled in Fruitville by the US government following the Vietnam War. Clan kin came because they heard that agribusiness-based Fruitville was a good place to live. The Southeast Asian population of Fruitville grew 435% between 1983 and 1991. By the beginning of my research, there were more of the highland Laotians called Hmong in Fruitville than in anyplace else on earth (Hmong Resettlement Study 1985). W The flood of immigration placed a burden on all Fruitville Community services, but none was more stretched than the school system, which had to cope with overcrowding, severe state budget cuts, restructuring, burgeoning ethnic gangs, and the more than 60 languages spoken at the time by its pupils and their parents. (Even with slowed immigration, the number of languages in Fruitville Unified has climbed steadily, to more than 100 documented at present by the district’s research department) (Lake, telephone interview 8 / 16/ 95). According to a school district administrator, in the 1990-91 School year, Fruitville Unified Schools had 17,000 students officially labeled Limited English Proficient (LEP). Despite regular instruction of these students in :rwh-asa-set“ ” 3353215 Flue: r in v ' - $31.6 lmec = i "..Q.“ a I \_ w \ ‘l II. "laud. LL alplt'n'x ' a Elia. l-‘su Cay ' 0. Ha stat: C. I " “09.1 "d l [a , t-; 0' "3.: 6 English-as-a-second-language pull-out programs, the district was able to reclassify as Fluent English Proficient (PEP) only 400. By fall of 1991, the F ruitville Unified LEP student population had grown to 19,100. Most of these students completed 12 years of schooling in Fruitville and graduated, still labeled LEP (Grimes, personal interview, 11 / 91). Clearly, the traditional approach to teaching English-as-a-second— language was not adequately addressing the needs of Fruitville’s students. The district appeared ready to take a chance on Elena’s ideas. Her previous success as a principal and her innovative bilingual philosophy persuaded other district administrators that she was the right person to lead the new elementary school. Year-round Armando A. Garcia Elementary (a pseudonym) opened in Fruitville irl August 1991, with Elena’s philosophy and strategy. Basic to that philosophy Was the decision made by Elena and her hand-picked staff to use a positive ITletaphor for their minority language students; they would call the students I«inguistically Gifted Persons (LGPs) instead of LEPs, as was state and district Policy. Garcia staff chose not to use Non-English Proficient (NEP), another official term, at all. From the beginning, Garcia teachers had much opportunity to interact with LGPs. They were working with students of the following ethnic groups and languages: Caucasian/ English (3%); African-American/ English (11 %); Hispanic / English (10%); Hispanic / Spanish (8%); Cambodian/ Khmer (25%); Highland Laotian/ Blue Hmong (10%); Highland Laotian/ White Hmong (12%); Lowland Laotian/ Lao (18%). All others made up the remaining 3% of the Student body, comprised of: Filipino / English and Tagalog; Indian/ Punjabi; Vietnamese / Vietnamese; Chinese / Cantonese and Mandarin; Iranian / Farsi. According to a 1991 Garcia demographics brochure, three quarters of the student re: was mew- ‘ '. v ‘ ‘ .w. 6 I" 1‘ if“! ”lg-“nu! us Ll $3.330 hat of C; ,. I’D-Mn ......rlmenctm 5 9323353319 new are received an H- I ’ .l.‘. er she in late: next. teac'r 3.5 Slll‘allAI philo i=3“D he S'Ptt‘iflc :23 for ..ofessio' 3153‘: Education. E19. ’1 %- .‘WS‘ '~.' n. ~ Ll‘»r':"«‘<‘igeii 3‘3} body was labeled Educationally Disadvantaged Youth (a Fruitville Unified term) and two-thirds did not speak English at home. These were the students so typically offered a deficit model of instruction in American education. Before Garcia Elementary School opened in August of 1991, most of its teaching staff was already working in other Fruitville schools, and a number had been designated mentor teachers. Some members of the staff were first-year teachers. Some teachers had experience with student bodies of ethnic makeup Similar to that of Garcia; some had taught in schools with a predominance of African-American students. Significantly, all Garcia teachers applied for positions at the new school after hearing Elena explain her philosophy. N 0 teacher received an involuntary transfer to Garcia. And Elena chose all Garcia teachers after she interviewed them, studied their personnel records, and Watched them teach. But equally significantly, no teacher came from a school With a similar philosophy. After Elena selected them, all teachers participated in creating the specifics of what the staff came to call ”The Garcia Plan." Selecting a staff for professional development is a luxury almost unheard of for a principal itl public education, but Elena accomplished it. Elena’s dream, which her new staff embraced, became ”The Garcia Plan,” and included the following: a) no pull-out classes, but immersion in English for all students, with use of primary language aides wherever possible to assist in teaching content through English; b) daily primary language instruction; C) foreign language instruction for all students; d) multi-age, multi-level, multi- proficiency grouping, team teaching and cooperative learning strategies; e) l'emoval of language barriers in communicating with parents; f) process-oriented, experiential learning in all subjects; g) a comprehensive staff development plan that would enable all 34 teachers to be certified for working with non-native x ‘ r - 962395 '0! [32,. j . 5‘" r"!- - we: 0Lu|€¢>|ily§ “H. I I 'b‘n- . - ‘ .h . Ride}. l' R: U “1...”! I. _. ' ruminant“. k" a\\'. . 3733335. and l‘. fit- 'A 1|“. “I‘M-:15. :5 t~l ’ \__ .3 I 1 _- Pr. 5‘ -.. it 34.3381? they in ‘CL..‘ ...-:9 ahaut the cl 3“". ......tl‘l..a?h0r' '43)»? 0ft ‘ . ‘ eathnE speakers of English and to complete master's degrees if they continued; h) partnerships with business, higher education, community organizations and agencies; i) school uniforms for both students and teachers; j) character education; k) acceleration instead of remediation; 1) primary language instruction for parents; and m) secondary language and literacy instruction for parents. (Grimes, SB 1274 Grant Proposal, 1991, 1) Warm: Despite the complexity of the Garcia Plan, all decisions made by Elena and her staff appeared to revolve around one key issue- the insistence that the children they would serve were not deficient. To embody their positive attitude about the children, the staff decided to call them ”Linguistically Gifted Persons." This phrase did not imply giftedness by any objective measure, such as tested proficiency in primary languages, nor did it imply that the students had been selected for Garcia’s programs by any means other than residence within the school’s attendance area. My research question, then, was: given the explicit policy of the Garcia staff to call minority language students Linguistically Gifted Persons, a Positive metaphor, and their stated strategies for working with these children, What sort of teaching was really going on in classrooms? How did the staff decision to view language minority students positively influence individual teacher behavior? Although I also examined the effect of the Garcia program on Students, on parents and on the larger school community, my primary focus was on teachers because previous research has indicated that regardless of the stated Plan for language immersion or other change programs, the programs succeed or fail based on the classroom climate created by teachers and on the specific methodology they use in interacting with learners. To. WWW. as~ “...;g ”a; U c A RIOJ'ODZV ll‘. 1" .‘teafgre, locust: 0‘7"}:an 6' 6 ‘ “Head's“ that ms: ”in o. ‘I 53...?» '31 09W C12? Ennl .\ . ' “AW” 14 Stine 8:; “Fl "’l"“‘“” ‘l‘ll: EN "':I“\\u \ \ la ‘ r .523: to: the new 5 I,.' _ ~ “Men :3 To answer this research question, I chose to do a descriptive ethnography, assuming the position of a participant observer. I will discuss my methodology in more depth in Chapter III. Chapters I and II of this study will include a review of pertinent literature, focusing on language immersion research, politics of literacy issues in education that may influence programs for language minority students or success of new curricula, and the literature on teacher change. In Chapter III, I will examine ethnography in general and my methodology in particular in Conducting this research. In Chapter IV, I will discuss the principal and teachers’ Vision for the new school. In Chapter V, I will detail the results of my Observations of six of the teachers in Track D. In Chapter VI, I will describe my analysis of secondary data — written artifacts of various types, student achievement test scores, my interviews with parents and with Garcia school administrators. In Chapter VII, 1 will summarize my conclusions and their iImplications for educational reform and for further research. Chapter VIII is an epilogue, a discussion of two interviews that detail changes at the school since I Completed my research. Ill“ hr“ \ nluhLl‘k. * Li. lna' ‘hta. : A,“ H vl‘ ‘ «0" I o ‘G9len‘ 2"». - ‘ tenet} 0: teaser CFJ‘Y‘N . ** 3«1111. am: :7: ‘ ‘ NT‘ér‘iga-Sec on lll‘h u : QtSLJuent‘S Ca “a“ _ “*3“ with me] 51;; t 33's are mair CHAPTER I IMMERSION LITERATURE, THE POLITICS OF LITERACY AND LANGUAGE POLICY CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY In a 1991 report called ”Language Minority Education in Great Britain: A Challenge to Current U. S. Policy,” McKay and Freedman note that for a variety of reasons, language policies have developed differently in the US and Great Britain, and have resulted in nearly opposite approaches. The standard English-as-a-second-language pull-out programs in the US create situations in which students called Limited English Proficient (LEP) have only one another to interact with much of the time. In Great Britain, however, language minority students are mainstreamed (or immersed) in regular classes taught in English where bilingual aides called "support teachers” collaborate with regular teachers and are available to students throughout the school day. The US policy often results in racial segregation as well as limited language development, while the UK model fosters both integration and greater language growth. The authors recommend that US language teachers need to examine goals and values for language minority programs, in particular regarding social segregation, language learning, and roles of language teachers. The Garcia Plan for mainstreaming language minority students while supporting their primary languages is similar to the British programs reviewed by these authors. Some authors, notably Nancy Ainsworth Johnson (1976), have been critical of the linguistic-cognitive deprivation model on which traditional 10 f v I n~ - . \ ‘1“)! .'_ 57¢.ng Cdth'a,’ u . ' in . " put .Lamb thl‘ "p;. l- ‘ I *an caterer N -- - WM - .3335? my 10:: 5733'. ." m . L‘“3H0nll\ C a\ 50.71"). - . '- Mn,‘§’ anj edu‘ ~'lI twill? :" DO" ‘ ‘ c.3315 ( 5 .- Sn i I‘l-‘n I 1 PM“ Al'- '1 JV“ .lu'dpl "1m “‘ ‘9FSio ll p: tt'b' Carl “‘9? - . ‘8 Inth i. {305 w. I 1 193 ”5:4,: . W ‘it ‘ h ‘35 l‘ \‘J- Raj”. ll English-as-a-second-language programs and labels for non-native speakers are based. Johnson discusses the work of Basil Bernstein, a British sociologist, who \ suggested that ”children from low socioeconomic classes exhibit a ’culturally induced backwardness transmitted by the linguistic process’” (Bernstein, 1970, I” 37); he names this ”’backwardness’” a ”’restricted code and then contrasts it III with an elaborated code’” which he believes middle- or upper—class speakers possess (204). Johnson objects to Bernstein’s premise that children from low socioeconomic classes somehow do not reason as well as more affluent children. I But, she points out, Bernstein’s views have influenced American psychology, sociology, and education. Thinking based on his views lies behind traditional pull-out programs and ability grouping or tracking. Language immersion programs are a step in the opposite direction. The results of language immersion have been carefully studied in Canada since a group of English-speaking parents approached the school board in a suburb of Montreal in 1965 and demanded that their children be taught in French from kindergarten on. The reasons for their demands were both political and economic. The Canadian government had instituted a policy granting official status to both French and English. The anglophone parents felt that their children would be handicapped in society unless they were fluent in French as well as English (Swain 1974). The result of the parental demand was an early French immersion program, in which English-speaking students were taught all content areas in French from kindergarten through school. Increasing amounts of English were introduced, up to 50% of the curriculum, from the middle elementary grades (for example, Swain 1974; Barik and Swain 1975; Genesee, et al.1989; Cummins 1983, and many others). The program has been deemed so successful that it has been replicated all over Canada, and is now available in at least four forms: early total immersion, early partial immersion (50 / 50 .1— ‘ . - ... ...<.- ...... ...n-CM 1' ' r set a: rrench ; p reef. merge” 3...: 3 . .....Jenq. Ptole.‘ . 5;.“- M~ ' A— th‘l‘p \I a ‘ ‘1. h “ ... “a .‘Infi'al F25“ ‘. Lie. 1:: the m r l 5‘ ‘Wg‘h w. ‘I-5h I {HOT l“". I r I‘- ‘5‘. . ... ...‘H . H‘. q‘ailn. 0‘ ll) 7'": U ‘~ 5.; 5L" . learners Kim; um, have lots ( an: ‘ .3: more UH e.» 5.. "Q 5m 0mg the .i MN"- :E‘II‘P‘ L' . ‘ y‘all} Hr ’ ' 12 programs), delayed immersion, and all-French schools (Cununins 1983, Genesee, et. a1. 1989). All researchers are not equally positive, however, in describing the effects of French immersion. By far the most in-depth research on Canadian French immersion programs was a five-year Development of Bilingual Proficiency Project involving a series of studies concerning language learning in educational settings (Harley, Allen, Cummins and Swain 1987). Major issues examined in the project included the nature of language proficiency, the impact of instructional practices on language learning, the relationship between social- environmental factors and bilingual proficiency and the relationship between age and language proficiency. The methodology study concluded: 1) that analytic and experiential focuses may be complementary and supportive of one another; 2) that quality of instruction is critical in both analytic and experiential teaching; and 3) that learners benefit when form and function are closely linked and students have lots of opportunity to use the target language. The researchers called for more in-depth studies of teacher training and professional development to support teachers moving to less prescriptive methods as well as for a closer look at curriculum development, regardless of the language teaching approach. By 1982, French immersion programs had attracted a number of critics, among them Weininger (1982a), who claimed that part of the success of immersion programs stemmed from the upper-middle-class homes from which the participating children came, and who cited longitudinal studies of Irish ilnmersion programs Wacnamara 1967) that showed Irish students had trouble working math problems ” set in their weaker language" by sixth grade (925). He also claimed that immersion was not nearly as natural as its proponents lead {eaders to believe. Another of his major points was that bilingual education 23:93:00 mucr .... was :: .., ..‘ H w are a~ Jumps. _I j-“5‘I‘. "”‘l ”o ‘1‘:J‘§\L|“al“ lna 1.5. . .3. li'mETSlOll " J. P -a '0' .233. 03 .3)? comm. . I . ' C ‘33)" ......3 were tn 1: ”I‘- ..;.a:r:.a:cal re ‘23:. huherszon I Jameson e g. N I I "13. fl _ x; .l 33.. aenor Ian ta. lhou 5. ‘g 30‘? L4 ““3“"? acts '\ 5:“, 13 placed too much emotional strain on five-year-old children. Among his closing arguments was the statement that immersion creates a gulf between school and home, as children cannot discuss their days at school ”with parents and friends without virtually translating the experience” (32). In a later article, Weininger (1982b) pointed out that observers of Irish immersion teachers noted that the teachers did most of the talking, gave most of the commands, asked known-answer questions, reformulated what students were trying to say, and focused on content without correcting ungrammatical responses. Weininger called for the same critical observation of French immersion programs to make sure that the praise offered them was not just a bandwagon effect created by enthusiastic parents who remembered their own inferior language instruction. Though the following research publications appeared after the Canadian French immersion program began in 1965, they shed retrospective light on the early and ongoing research on immersion. Dell Hymes ushered in a new era in language research in 1972 with his introduction to Cazden, Hymes, and John’s WW Classroom. Hymes recommended that language be taught in a ”’participatory democracy’” within the classroom, and that teachers should take the students from what they already know and lead them, in an interactive fashion, to new knowledge. He stated strongly that language should be studied ”in context,” and added that the only adequate ”theory of the functioning of language would not ’start’ from either language or context, but would systematically relate the two within a single model” (1972, xix). Hymes argued for the interpretation of utterances in the larger sense (incorporating intonation, tone, gesture, etc.) as communicative acts. Furthermore, he warned that in rejecting a child’s speech, fil" educator rejected the child. One must first accept what one wants to change .12ch 5 59‘)" I A ' 6 g". .. a ‘ . ‘ mm 3.4.. -‘ ... ' I ' ‘ w " . Hume: mgn‘ K: '~"", ngdagfi‘ _ \p “‘5‘ 5 .tils- he Said! b.“ .. .1. , ...:e. < or 1mm aesge L“. Dart]; Cane {we . 5 “MD 0‘ commu Ha ' a 3 ' . ‘Ruallamt‘l‘ ‘7. “5““ "a awesome] banal“ .gramm .NJ, mum ge of rule? Tm“? I'IIB'L‘ICI v 3» W3)" haw » ...r :al rules rat»- ot verbal a ~~vemeoppl . “s. ll'lEl‘ Said 5:» I \ “Raul. e 3... Clas< w" 14 in a child’s speech in order to change it. This premise certainly tied closely with the Garcia staff’s decision to label their children positively, even though the children might speak little English and be less than proficient in their native languages. Hymes grounded his ideas in the concept of communicative competence within a speech community, and stressed that a person may belong to many speech communities. Language should not be viewed as right or wrong, he said, but as appropriate to its context. Thus Hymes rerouted the traditions of linguistics and education, for both had habitually examined language in particles, outside of context. Canale and Swain (1979), among others, examined further the theories of communicative competence and communicative performance and proposed a framework for communicative competence built on grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. By their definition, grammatical competence encompasses lexical knowledge as well as knowledge of rules of syntax, morphology, sentence-grammar semantics, and phonology. They defined sociolinguistic competence as facility with the sociocultural rules of use and rules of discourse. Strategic competence implied mastery of verbal and nonverbal communication strategies. Language learners must have the opportunity to interact meaningquy with competent native speakers, they said, and learners must ”respond to genuine communicative needs in realistic second language situations” (57). They recommended second language instruction in content areas, particularly social studies. They suggested that language be evaluated in authentic situations, and that authentic texts be part of the second language classroom from the beginning. The teacher of a communicative class should be ”an instigator of and participant in meaningful communication” (68), and they cautioned that the teacher would have to be «q tw- 15 no ‘0‘ tr uJ...?t-Eau ll u.. e22; Canale I 533:" Wow; [on tarmac ate a Ou'. -r\~‘- an. ' K“:\'dh RJ tho; m. 5. ‘- " :351 _‘ 7".» all m'hkn ”5%. ..w.‘ 59531159 llle u n m an ac 5.” em 1“?“ p _’l "“39 hxelv l 3‘3; . . \allj tradztj 5.. I \. ‘\ q . 31. are “-le, ~3‘fw0h . u “for bne: 5'; ‘QJ ‘8‘: ~ “\k5‘lh I ‘v‘d h ‘ If» r 0&5: ”3:3... 15 competent in the language herself to manage successfully in a communicative setting. Canale and Swain felt that a corrununicative approach, while not perfect, would result in such heightened teacher / learner motivation that attitude alone would compensate for any shortcomings in the approach. This sort of communicative approach, coupled with English immersion and primary language support in the content areas, was among the goals of the Garcia Plan. The work of Hymes and Canale and Swain is important to note as one approaches the literature on immersion programs because in the ideal, immersion programs do attempt to embody a ”participatory democracy” in the classroom, and the goal of immersion is a natural acquisition of a second language in much the same way the first language was acquired (Cummins 1982). Because they experience the second language constantly as a medium of instruction in all academic subjects and become comfortable using the second language even in play, students absorb the language almost incidentally, in context. Proponents of immersion programs, therefore, claim that immersion is much more likely to foster communicative competence in the second language than are any traditional core or second language programs. Such traditional programs are typically teacher-centered particle approaches, sequential grammar instruction for brief daily periods, from which students are to build language proficiency (Cummins 1982). The latter ”traditional" approach is common in US foreign language classrooms, especially at the secondary level, and was more in evidence in Garcia classrooms than teachers believed. Swain, in one publication (1981a), stated that the ”key differences between early immersion education and most other second language instructional programs would appear to be two fold: time provided and sequencing of input” (7). Immersion begins holistically, with no planned 5equencing of input, while most second language programs operate from zmthme 3:323' 13323-3: . . 323; he tours: 3:333:15, and s. C" .3323 actual ‘IQ‘OV I ..mll'flerfldl‘. l "LAN! 1 ‘9 my: 313 .305 tr? T may). .llUS. II II 2.3.3311" ‘ ~‘ bet 5 hug . ‘ LI‘I._L “39¢. 5ll€ WC “Clem: at al ....t Denmcia 11:1. . an“, ear!" A s. ' E \‘\ I ‘1. ‘ Jr. 3 Mhhg Z:- 1. 16 carefully defined and sequenced syllabi. (In my own observation of secondary second language programs, the textbook, serving grammar in sequential doses, equals the course.) Explicit grammar instruction is postponed in immersion programs, and started early on in second language programs. Swain felt that students' actual learning probably defies sequenced approaches, and concluded that immersion is more affirming of the language children bring with them to school and does not force production of the second language before children are ready. Thus, it is more natural. Swain did, though, suggest that while French immersion students showed no detrimental effect on their primary language (English), she would not generalize to ”vernacular speakers who do not strongly value their own language, and for whom the target language is the language of the environment" (14). The implication is that such students would risk losing their primary language. Garcia staff understood this danger and took measures to demonstrate their valuing and support of primary languages. In a second publication in 1981 (b), Swain admonished that expectations must be realistic for all programs. Factors influencing outcomes can be teacher methodology, accumulated hours of second language instruction, and intensity of the second language program. She found that older learners are more efficient at acquiring second languages, but that early immersion programs are more beneficial than those started later because students lose their self— consciousness and become more active speakers of the second language. In addition, early beginning in second language instruction may have positive effects on both first language and cognitive development. In another important conclusion, she said that there was no reason to lower expectation of certain groups of students (i.e. learning disabled or lower IQ students) in second language programs. She favored early total immersion because it makes bilingualism possible for a ”potentially larger number of students to whom .- .. . ' 1 ..‘ETJJE an; .2 Ir. M .3. _" {‘3‘ “TJIEINOI 5'7““9.“ ‘jp ' . 4 Ah‘ysuualeaudgu L “‘5; P' ’1 Was hm; ' 5"“.“I “run. I 'QU“ .. ‘. Ir. b . L515? :19“, r l ‘9‘.“ n ...»..1333) not}. a. 3 “. . ‘Jm'i'dmca WI 5’9» .u‘ , ““L'WNLIRI S de ~I W . .t‘ILL‘ a; ‘ \- a a... '1‘ this} “N, a h ”-3410“ 17 cognitive and linguistic benefits may accrue" (496). In a third publication that same year (1981c), Swain reiterated that early immersion was best for children of a dominant, majority culture, but she recommended a later start for minority language speakers to hedge against the loss of their primary language. She reminded her readers that ”in neither case should the first language be exempt from inclusion in the curriculum” (29). The Garcia Plan was an early immersion approach for minority language speakers, but first languages were included in the curriculum. In a study of Welsh immersion programs for students in Wales, Dodson (1983) reported that even after 20 years of experimenting with functional / notional teaching of Welsh, teachers failed to move their students to real communicative competence in large enough numbers to satisfy the community’s desire for bilingual education. Dodson claims that the trouble stemmed from several sources. First, expectations were not high, and teachers tended to complain about the time required to allow students to achieve all the goals of the communicative approach. Therefore, they slipped into direct method teaching. Also, Dodson asserts that the developing bilingual does not learn Language 1(L1) and Language 2 (L2) in exactly the same way, but takes short cuts with L2, comparing and contrasting utterances in the two languages, and sometimes even making consecutive statements in L1 and L2. Such short cuts are usually forbidden by teachers using the direct method because they involve use of more than the target language. To assist the learner in applying shortcuts, Dodson recommended what he calls the Bilingual Method, so that young learners can use medium-oriented communications (requiring some use of L1) when needed, and can move toward greater implementation of message- oriented communications (use of language as a tool for survival). Teachers at Garcia were exposed to the Bilingual Method in their first-year’s inservice, and I 35:93.3 ea >€\ ‘Hcll'; - .31. HA\ 5 O . "‘I "12 I& F;m"e'€ Ann... A “Hip-u“. .‘g‘ ““‘thgcu - - H'l‘a'-hn I I NV” §uksl ‘ ' H h ‘ 3” Q \ a I ‘ Haul") all :I 7‘55“"... -‘ 5. ‘khmlfiukc‘. . I ... 8"“3‘.‘ a «an. (:81: L*Il I“, VA a“: a S .‘ ‘ x if. n; r \ \lt‘ “O 3.3- - 4 ,-. ‘L‘Er°q§ \‘ I 5‘ K “...:H I ‘§?~‘ ' 18 observed several using utterances in English and a child’s primary language to insure comprehension. Dodson stated that the same discouraging of short-cuts by learners has hampered Canadian immersion programs, resulting in low levels of communicative proficiency by those in total immersion programs. Immersion can be ”submersion” for minority language children. On the other hand, students allowed to use the Bilingual Method, Dodson said, can achieve corrununicative competence in a foreign or second language. Garcia teachers wanted their students to achieve communicative competence in English and in their primary languages. Beardsmore and Kohls (1988) examined the acquisition of multilingual proficiency in European Schools, where the goals are mother tongue language and cultural maintenance, European identity through instruction in from two to four languages, and elimination of ethnolinguistic prejudice. Like the Canadian immersion schools, European Schools grew out of parent initiative in Luxemburg in 1958, this time to meet the needs of children of employees of the European Economic Community. Then including six member states and five languages, the Community now numbers 12 states and nine languages. Schools consist of different linguistic subsections covering the nine official languages. Special ”culturally charged subjects” (242) like history or geography, are taught on national lines. The program is otherwise divided into a five year Primary Section and a seven year Secondary Section. From the beginning, a ”vehicular” 12 (selected from English, French or German) is the medium of instruction and lingua franca for conversations among students. From the third year on, three days per week include European Hours, classes that bring together students from different subsections in groups of 20 to study common lessons. The classes are taught in one of the L25, and consist of creative subjects such as cooking, Q nun sb_m ‘- pa. psA Luulx. I A I v u ”"1” OII 4 0‘!" u~_n.ui 5.... '. . new n: 3 oh..»,.l u‘lH «i . V‘IRH-nl “Shun“ .. ‘-..~ . ~ x‘:‘“\': a: ‘ .., ““’\'\ 1 l htk , -' D‘akl I a... ‘N 5'; 'u \n. x"- V r‘ A. 3‘9; a fix. l9 puppet-making, etc. Physical education is also taught in the vehicular language from the third year on. During the Secondary School Program, Human Sciences (history and geography) are taught in L1 during the first and second years and in L2 beginning in the third. While creative courses continue to be taught in L2, an L3 is introduced as a compulsory subject during the third year. European Schools are not elitist in composition, as there is no pre- selection of students. Researchers on proficiency in French in European Schools used tests developed by the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the same tests that had been used in the Ontario Institute’s longitudinal study of the Canadian French immersion programs. The findings showed that European School students initiated L2 peer group interaction, while French immersion students did not. Immersion students, however, come from a common English speaking background, and not from the multitude of languages represented by European school students. Also, European school students have regular opportunities to interact using the vehicular L2 languages. Out-of-school experiences abound for European school students to use L23, and are not so available to French immersion students. While all good language programs provide large doses of input for the students, out-of—class student output is another matter. Unless the language is seen by students as pertinent to out-of- school use, students may not generate much output. The beauty of the European school is that its ”social engineering" both in and out of school ”automatically links up pertinence with output and input, leaving motivation to take care of itself” (259). Beardsmore and Kohls believe that the resulting intrinsic motivation is a key reason why the schools are so successful. —-—- I‘WWN'QO- 4- v-nv \ ”ma—aux“ b‘ ‘ 1 ...... . |\ v ' ‘ 3 1327.3 15‘: 99 95 I" o “yr-v- l . . s l \. ._,. . “““h‘ L l- b. GET-M's TV I m~\n.‘- 4 ' “rel-UL u 1.". H1 I. - _ I a. "' A .' “aunt: l ...“ .l “ “36.470 '0; a “ d». ‘9 “n4 . l. h'flhja-b V‘Lu H) . . I alr‘vb, P l , an". I “~- lan’fi v n ‘0 a \ D. .1 A‘. ‘|’ ‘I \ ‘L s are 5‘ _. N.“- 20 Wm: Genesee’s 1985 review of US second language immersion programs found three early-type categories of instruction: enriched, magnet, and two-way bilingual. (No late-immersion programs existed in the US at the time of Genesee’s review.) The first type, immersion as educational enrichment, was introduced in Culver City, California in 1971, and was evaluated from the outset by researchers from University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). Instruction began in Spanish in kindergarten, with English introduced in grade 2 for language arts. In the Culver City program, the same teachers teach both English and Spanish portions of the curriculum. This program has been characterized as ”additive,” in that students do not lose their mother tongue, but add facility in a foreign language. Participation is voluntary, and children come from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Most research results from Culver City are similar to the results from Canadian immersion research, with children achieving high levels of proficiency in Spanish and maintaining good English proficiency. Children do not, however, achieve native-like oral proficiency if they use Spanish only in the school setting. A similar enrichment program in French in Montgomery County, Maryland uses French as the medium of instruction K-2, with the exception of physical education and music, both of which are taught in English. English language arts classes are introduced in grade 3. An interesting feature is that class groupings in Montgomery County include multiple grade levels, in much the same design as the multi-level interaction at Garcia Elementary. Research results are similar to Culver City’s, with English development lagging behind until shortly after English language arts instruction is introduced. Genesee characterized immersion in magnet schools with a program in Cincirmati, Ohio introduced in 1974, on which research is still in ‘5‘; vmm 1w“ Scum. Ilium .. I 7 I I :"V" '9‘ “C u Lyn-13:6 aAIU .. ‘WWI "' T‘ ‘ ( “durable”. III ”9.”‘ ' I ”were mill ‘ \- I~.' . I l.‘ ' h "0‘ 4 .ulfideAJ. )\ u “%‘9 I A aluch. Tho 'J L T ‘ v a .-f lhhfiaffiu “Shh”, . t‘wse‘q to a I a." .5“ , 21 progress. Students may choose programs in French or Spanish of the early partial immersion variety, where 50% of the program is taught in the target language and 50% in English. In all other ways the program is similar to immersion in Canada and in the US programs detailed above. Cincinnati programs include both African-American and white students, with the African- American students frequently speaking Black English Dialect as their mother tongue. Though results only from pilot tests were available at the time Genesee wrote his article, the picture looked remarkably similar to the Canadian immersion results. Even the ethnic minority children who spoke a nonstandard dialect were achieving well in English and in the target language. A third type of immersion, two-way bilingualism, was introduced in San Diego, California in 1975. This program is different from the enrichment and magnet programs in that it includes officially-designated nonproficient and limited English proficient children (N EPs and LEPs) who are already speakers of the target language, in this case, Spanish. The English-speaking students learn Spanish during the immersion, while the Spanish-speaking students learn English. This is a twist on the Canadian model, with participation voluntary for both Spanish and English speakers. Spanish is the main medium of instruction K-2. English is taught 20 minutes per day in preschool, 30 minutes per day in kindergarten, and 60 minutes per day in grades 2-3. Oral language receives more emphasis than literacy in either language in the early grades. Instruction is approximately 50 / 50 in English and Spanish in grades 4-6, with certain subjects designated to a language, and with mathematics alternating between the two languages from week to week. The two languages are never used in any subject area during the same instruction period. As is usual, evaluations of the San Diego program showed English proficiency lagging behind during the early grades, but all cohort students ‘ I :tr.:are..ha .1 ' ”7‘ ram ‘. II- min a: E‘a‘ .. . pd L‘Ida 23A .8“ a\ Bulfi; ‘ :NE'E m w... “5915.15 art 0' [0“, \"H EV” C "le ”A”! L A " fur-u. ‘ LHI( "QII ... l')‘ {by n. >6 P. I .ld 2+0 H LSle‘Y I 1' l '3 , I‘ ~£ Si‘JJe; 113-» . L“: 17: teach. ‘1‘?va ..i-A. ~€CChEIS WW”? “we“.l 2s \f“: ‘ fl . ‘hac ~s \ ' all! ‘N i...“ 22 monitored had reached grade level or attained significant gains by the end of the program at grade 6. Students who entered the program labeled LEP in kindergarten averaged a ”proficient" rating in three years. Spanish language results were more variable, with most cohort students who were followed receiving an oral rating of ”proficient” within two years. Wong Fillmore (1991) conducted what she refers to as the ”No Cost Survey” of Non English Proficient students immersed in English in pull-out programs in California. She would corroborate Swain’s implication that students tend to lose primary languages perceived as not valued, but adds that they also do not master standard English, as under the typical English immersion program for LEP students, they are most often segregated in groups of like learners, where only the teacher speaks target English. Wong Fillmore asserts that, "(E)xcept for their teachers, the learners may have little contact with people who know the language well enough to help them learn it” (35). Wong Fillmore recommends that immersion in the second language be postponed until the primary language is fully formed enough to last through additional language instruction. Gonzalez (1991) regrets that the research on language acquisition in the US has focused on acquisition of English. He researches acquisition of Spanish as a first language by Mexican-American children, and collects data on phonology, morphology, and syntax to document language development. He concurs with Wong Fillmore that failure to nurture a child’s first language in a school environment can result in loss of the first language, with ” disastrous consequences” (66) for communication within a family, alienation from the family, and eventual student shame over the language of the home. He cites Cummins (1979, 1986) and Krashen (1985), and argues that undergirding the first language and promoting its continued development is the best way to introduce development of the second language. Gonzalez is a proponent of bilingual I aqua.“ n r n y ‘ Iduguu~1 - .. '1’! hm, . § '- “Ifl||‘uv~t ‘L I V -I as..-.,.‘_ , h-~ixalu.‘ 0‘ ' I IA.|¢.-.l|‘_ A tit-u5Ll| aLt I l ‘ me csntent a1 ‘“ Via-.5 . J1" .m: 59; fl”; :56de ~11. ' ‘ l rue; ill: Ill 9. "v ‘ u "h "I - ahfi ”tuna, 13“» k, " " fi. .8. H: his. ‘ ;., 'Vh. ‘1 “h {I E 23 education. Bilingual education has become an increasingly hot political topic, with huge financial implications for school systems like Fruitville Unified, where thousands of immigrants are enrolled. Some researchers, politicians and a politically active cadre of parents believe that unless language learners are taught the content areas in their primary language, they not only lose that language, but they have seriously lessened opportunity to learn content. Lindholm and Aclan (1991), researchers from San Jose State University and Stanford, respectively, studied the link between bilingualism and academic achievement, noting the variety of discrepant results from previous research, which has ”validated” programs ranging from immersion to maintenance bilingual education to transitional bilingual education. Lindholm and Aclan studied children involved in a bilingual / immersion program, which maintains bilingual education for language minority students and immerses in the second language the language majority students. Their dual research focus was to describe the relationship between bilingual proficiency and academic achievement among elementary students in the program, as well as to describe the Spanish and English reading and mathematics achievement of the English and Spanish-speaking students enrolled. Their results showed, not surprisingly, that the degree of proficiency of the language acquisition of both languages was correlated to academic achievement. Highly proficient bilinguals outperformed students with low and medium bilingual proficiency in Spanish and English reading and Spanish and English mathematics. Lindholm and Aclan concluded that the bilingualism itself may prove to be a cognitive advantage in academic success once students have reached full language proficiency in both languages. They argue for a ”full maintenance" bilingual / immersion program that ”completely develops both languages over an extended period of time to reap the higher academic 2"»? mm?" a .A’slbausau “F11 mjnb ,1. r 5 “Hugh...” ...Sftflttm ‘. I #- .)~"P 1. l b .‘ ‘5‘...“ LAG \ *2... V -“ {bug . hrf“ 1 “‘09... .r.:. 35.331901 Sim-1 . . ‘ nun-G. H T“: \ k‘ -, "I. .' ~§. .u 9'5 “i ‘\a \.l :5“ ‘fihfi‘ ~ ugqp‘ “Ci I.h k":'a’-_ A 1545.‘kt In W“ '.‘ 459:5. Re “@111 E4. Clan. \f H" Me SUI 33‘; I i {l‘\ [all C M \5‘ d.:; 24 achievement” (79). They consider bilingualism a ”bridge" to academic achievement. In looking at emergent English literacy of young, linguistically different writers, Seda and Abramson (1990) examined LEP kindergartners in a ”regular" classroom in which English was the language of instruction and the teacher espoused whole language methodology. The teacher used heterogeneous language and ability groups and asked that students do daily journal writing. Case studies allowed the researchers to arrive at the conclusion that interactive journal writing in small, heterogeneous groups is an effective instructional strategy, and that the children demonstrated more similarity than difference in the variety of developmental progress they shared with native speakers. Researchers recommended a print-rich environment, well-planned ”teacher stagings of literacy events” (87) and teacher training in strategies of developing English literacy of second language learners. Their research suggests that ”the relationship between oral and written language is transactional, whether in first or second language” (87) and ”contradicts the conventional wisdom, at least for young children, that second language learners must first gain competence in oral language before learning to read and write” (87). Perhaps the most comprehensive study of bilingual education to date was directed by]. David Ramirez and called the ”Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit, and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language Minority Children” (1991). His study began in fiscal year 1983-84 and concluded in fiscal year 90-91. The Executive Summary of his report concluded that all types of bilingual programs have the same goal, acquisition of English language skills to the degree that Students can succeed in English-only classrooms. The bilingual programs studied differ primarily in the amount and duration of the study of English as I' ' v '66.. 35 tilt” 18} 1 .‘. I . 'vfil'. tilt“ Cllllc' l‘prMJV' n ' haJs-thll ?‘ 6 ’...LV 1 t icktlcrs nag v-L-u. L“ “fladan 0 6.... , b.1631): p: I V' V 57-" ‘. '6 I 1.- 1 .‘ In v. ctqge-‘tc LI‘ la' Gil-c to 631 “-4 25 well as the length of time students remain in the programs. English was the language of instruction for content areas in all immersion programs studied, with the child’s primary language used mostly for clarification as needed. All immersion programs were based on the Canadian French immersion model. Teachers had specialized training, with either English as a Second Language certification or a bilingual education credential. If an LEP student begins the immersion program in kindergarten, s/ he would be expected to exit and be ready to be mainstreamed in regular classrooms within two to three years. Early-exit programs started instruction in the child’s primary language for only 30 to 60 minutes per day, generally to introduce reading skills. Primary language used for clarification is phased out over two years. Students in the early-exit model are supposed to be mainstreamed by the end of second grade. Students in late-exit programs received a much larger percentage of instruction, 40% to 60%, in Spanish, and remained in the bilingual program through sixth grade, regardless of when or whether they were reclassified as ”fluent-English- proficient” (PEP). Ramirez cautions that the results of his study are relevant only to programs serving Spanish-speaking language minority students, because he contends that other second language learners may learn English differently. He also cautions that results of his study are generalizable only to instructional programs with the same characteristics as those in his study. With these disclaimers noted, Ramirez listed among his results that a) the three programs he studied represented three distinct instructional strategies; b) teachers in these three programs used the same strategies to reach students, regardless of the language of instruction; and c) teachers in the three programs taught neither language nor higher order thinking skills effectively, instead offering students a passive learning environment with limited opportunities to produce language I u ‘ I. I! ~' 3?... gel 6.." l A. ‘ - ’I1 ‘1'": an"- uuut LLIII. u I fi ‘ D'\ 9" .821..tu u C 33“": '71}! ““1"”. A. k . . . I 3:.3'2. "‘vo human )6. . ‘j-~.-. ' N Q5I:>.'_‘n_ I F’Lqfim'“‘w , . , ~““L¢II£. . "‘ sa. 1 n" |\'H"H.' F '“Hp a: I “2.”;:»\ 26 and develop complex language and thinking skills (198-204). Despite their goals to the contrary, Garcia Elementary teachers too often fell into this teacher- centered trap while I was observing. Content area instruction varied somewhat among the programs Ramirez studied, with English language arts instruction getting more time in immersion-strategy classrooms. Instructional strategies in general varied only slightly by grade, with typical activities involving seatwork, discussion, and some drillwork, listening, and other activities. These are predominantly activities in which students produce little language and are asked to do simple recall. Teachers assigned and graded more homework in late-exit programs. Ramirez found that students were engaged in the classroom tasks, and that parents in the late-exit classrooms were more likely to help their children with homework, probably because it occurs for a much longer time in the primary language. Slightly more early-exit students (72%) than immersion students (66%) were reclassified are fluent-English-proficient by third grade (four years in the program). Four-fifths of the late-exit students were reclassified by the end of sixth grade (208). Despite reclassification, however, Ramirez found that students tended to stay in the immersion and early-exit programs at least four years, with late-exit students staying in the program seven years. Early mainstreaming seems to be lost as a goal. After four years in their programs, early-exit and immersion students achieved comparably in mathematics, language and reading, tested in English, though both lagged in rate of growth in mid-elementary years, not unlike students in the normed population. Late-exit programs varied widely in effectiveness, both between districts and between schools within districts. Ramirez found, however, that longer instruction in the primary language did not impede the growth of English language skills, and late-exit students tended to achieve at the same rate as the norming population in other content areas if they were not ” transitioned abruptly” into English-only 1 _ .‘\‘\‘ -..... ..an30315 3 ... I h 4' t D I: - a ,. frinlucnls L :’j"‘L “4' H "and“. In I 3 7357331133 \1 .‘ ”"1A H . 3.2393975 for If?! A».-. , su:.lb‘ p. Opor‘ I R 131» “‘5 WEN 1 1......“ c} I ‘ c‘ » a Nfi‘s' . This .1. Nihi- ‘ l :~~.- ‘ a “A‘cms . ‘ ml“: :b ‘AQ Ix. \’ ... I “L64 . l‘a. t~c 27 classrooms (227). Late-exit teachers tend to have backgrounds more similar to their students than do teachers in the other programs; they are more fluent in Spanish and have more training in working with LEP students. Teachers in each program had widely different attitudes and beliefs about how LEP students should be taught, but usually reflected the rationales of their respective programs. Ramirez found, as well, that school sites having only one language strategy tended to segregate language-minority students ”from native English speakers for instruction” (229). Immersion strategy schools tended to have the highest proportion of students from low-income families. Ramirez concluded that there is no difference in student achievement in mathematics, English language skills, or reading in immersion and early-exit programs. Except when they receive sudden transition into English-only classrooms, late-exit students showed continual increase in rate of growth in other content areas while learning English. Students in all three instructional programs showed greater growth in the early elementary years (between first and third grades) than between spring of third and spring of sixth grades. This deceleration of growth also occurs in the norming population. But students in late-exit programs decelerated less dramatically, and appeared to gain on students in the norming population. Students in all three instructional programs improved ”their skills in mathematics, English language and reading as fast as or faster than students in the general population” (230). Ramirez also concluded that teachers need better training ”both at the university and school district levels, so that they can provide a more active learning environment for language and cognitive skill development” (230). Collier (1992) synthesized longitudinal studies of the past decade in LEP academic achievement, looking, as did Ramirez, at the use of minority language for instruction, and at the influence of that instruction on the ..L. V...“ .7“ fitluEICulL. .‘fimm 1'” r - L‘v'LaL‘I 1:. I b: l '91: 'W‘Ra“ ‘. 4:5 M‘t. Ha. t. P-J “('25. .1." :H‘ ‘ - dtfilé 28 achievement of minority-language students. She prefaces her report with comments on the finance-driven focus on effectiveness of program changes and the impatience of school systems under pressure to demonstrate results. ”Almost all stakeholders in these evaluations want instant or short-term answers. They want to know, in one or two years, what the results are” (231). Yet true results are much more elusive, and take at least four years to develop. Collier cites the work of Borg and Gall (1983) on the ”Hawthorne effect” that appears to influence student gains on any innovation, but Collier warns that such gains may disappear in later years. She points out, further, that normal growth curves flatten out as students age and as the entire curriculum becomes more complex and cognitively more challenging. She warns that whenever we examine short-term results in education, we are getting an inaccurate picture. These comments about impatience for measurement and results seem particularly apropos of Fruitville Unified and the current political pressure in California, issues I will discuss in the latter chapters of this report. Collier points out that many US immersion programs appear to be based on Canadian immersion, but that there are often striking differences. For one thing, all Canadian immersion programs are bilingual programs with ”full support for two languages for all grade levels, K-12” (236). Also, they are frequently programs in which majority language students are learning a minority language, instead of vice-versa. In her report, Collier examines longitudinal studies on a number of types of bilingual programs. One, the two-way bilingual program, most like that designed by Elena for Garcia Elementary School, was not examined by Ramirez. In a two-way bilingual program, language minority students and language majority students work together on academic subjects. There is no need for an ” exit” time, as the language minority students are already mainstreamed. While f‘ l' . . ‘ ‘5 I ’0 7“ xLLOMEI 3.3.1. I fi’fhwzm h; >-~~uuan Ill-t 3“.”‘p- ;‘ N "‘h‘ Q“. m\. ' b ' I ”7" ”7"" av hat“: ..1 "2377""? .n ' N‘J'VIAI‘ .‘l‘ o "-94. 9 - bE-lu ‘8 SO} W"; ‘L 5 6‘ “”5 “db I! “up 7. “Q?“‘n A ‘ brnb.“u ‘_ ”-5., .I' . . ‘ ’ H ”.541. 9“ ‘ ‘1'“ ‘ p :L'Tm.’ ' “Ml-“Hie S n ‘h-l‘k v ‘ L P n V- I. -' ‘lu- 1C111 31-. .1 'V‘I, _ \, 1th L‘ In 2*». K"E:‘D.;1_ \‘A UL '2' . v. ‘1‘ C j“ . u, L'd‘ I "r. ‘1': .‘ment ‘k‘ D a,» I . ‘VA.E \f‘ h‘I‘ES‘r". “‘1gait‘ 1:2 s5. 29 Collier states that very little longitudinal achievement research on this type of program has been conducted to date, she adds that, ”The two-way bilingual program model has strong potential for high academic achievement of all students by lessening social distance and unequal social status relations between majority and minority language students" (236). The few longitudinal studies that exist show that students in a two-way program for at least four to five years ”tend to score very high on standardized tests in English” (236). Still, Collier warns that the results of the four studies she analyzed were flawed by representing whole class performance, without breakdowns by language group, or they had too few students to be generalizable. Collier reports that a form of late-exit bilingual education was adopted by the state of California in the early 19805. In this model, literacy instruction in L1 and L2 is conducted separately, with primary language reading taught first ”and L2 literacy introduced in second or third grade" (237). California’s model emphasizes separating the languages of instruction, with no translation between the two, and teaching language through content areas. Early-exit bilingual models are the most common, though across the US they are also the form in which teachers most frequently tend to use passive rather than active methodology. Structured immersion (all instruction in L2) is not common in the US, but English-as-a-second-language (ESL) programs are common. Achievement results for structured immersion showed that students lose ground as they progress through elementary school. ESL programs are changing to be more student-centered and interactive, and look more promising with the change. In summary, Collier stated that two-way bilingual and late—exit programs produce the best results according to data currently available. The clearest generalization that can be made to date for all programs is that the 30 greater amount of L1 instructional support for language-minority students, combined with balanced L2 support, the higher they are able to achieve academically in L2 in each succeeding academic year, in comparison to matched groups being schooled monolingually in L2 (241). Rossell and Baker (1996) examined 300 studies of bilingual education and found only 25% methodologically sound. They were looking specifically for a treatment and control group with statistical analysis of results, so they automatically rejected ethnographies or statistical studies that did not fit their model. Their mission was to see whether transitional bilingual education, the most common practice in the US, was really the most effective model. Of the 72 studies they found acceptable, they found that transitional bilingual education was never better than structured immersion, ”a special program for limited English proficient children where the children are in a self-contained classroom composed solely of English learners” where the English instruction is at a pace children can understand (7). One of Rossell and Baker’s hypotheses is that maintenance bilingual education, or bilingual education for an entire school career, may be a superior technique even if it reduces English proficiency. Their reason is that children who remain bilingual have a better chance of succeeding in life through ”economic gains” (41) or ”in an intellectual sense” (41) than do children whose primary language proficiency declines. ”One of the many serious limitations” of the research they examined was that ”no one looks at the future educational success of graduates of bilingual or immersion programs as well as their life chances” (41). The authors claimed that the Ramirez study, cited earlier, ” cost millions of dollars and made only a small contribution to our understanding” (42) of the effects of bilingual education. I was especially intrigued by the comments of Rossell and Baker, as the Garcia School children, who receive support for their primary languages throughout elementary school, ,. . ..I.. . if?“ .L'H 5‘ MIA | » mar-l!“ 1P Ll whoLo. LII D'!‘; H- m ' I'Itdl. Ink in. n , . in: :3“. [T‘RQOV 31 are really in a maintenance bilingual program. Only additional longitudinal research on those children could evaluate whether the program offers them life benefits from maintaining two languages. i- '1 In 1 . u - ._ -, o , ‘ u Au.1'cbii f 911' s'u Building on extended research on immersion programs, Swain and other authors have produced several publications with application to the situation in Fruitville. Swain and Lapkin (1989) warn that Canadian French immersion programs cannot be exactly equated with English immersion programs for minority language students in the US. While Canadian programs show that a likely outcome of immersing a majority language speaker is bilingualism, immersing a minority language child may result in unilingualism, with the mother tongue lost. Swain and Lapkin suggest that students may be in less danger of language loss (and be faster at attaining target language literacy) if immersion is started later, and the authors strongly advise that content and language teaching should be integrated. They cite research that illustrates the inefficiency of standard ESL pull-out programs, from which students are ”submerged” without help in mainstream classes before they are really ready; they quote Wong Fillmore, Cummins and others who have found that genuine proficiency may take five to eight years. Swain and Lapkin also caution that some failings of immersion methodology are emerging from longitudinal research on Canadian French immersion. First, the input students get may be ” functionally restricted” (155), like that I observed frequently at Garcia Elementary, with some language uses occurring only rarely within the classroom setting. Secondly, grammar should not be taught in isolation from content, but should be incorporated into content lessons. Finally, immersion in the content areas may offer students little 32 opportunity for output in a teacher-centered class. Again, I saw this situation often in my observations at Garcia, despite the best intentions of teachers. Instead, they recommend activity-centered approaches with lots of opportunities for small group work to maximize student output. Small group work at Garcia was the best vehicle I observed for student output and real communication among peers and between students and the teacher. In a 1986 study titled ”The Baby and the Bathwater or What Immersion Has to Say About Bilingual Education,” Genesee lambasted typical ESL programs, which he says operate in a vacuum. Instead, he recommended that English be taught to minority language students through immersion in regular content classes, with content area teachers assuming some responsibility for their minority language students’ language learning needs. He stressed the need for communicative interaction in effective language teaching, and recommended eight teacher strategies to foster assimilation and retention of new information. These included: 1) simplified teacher talk (i.e. slower speech); 2) direct questioning with strategies to counteract communication breakdown; 3) explanations of unfamiliar concepts; 4) use of non-verbal contextual support, such as realia, photos, etc.; and 5) developing of sensitivity to bilingual learners’ nonverbal cues of confusion. In a long discussion of motivation of bilingual learners, Genesee warned that learners will not be motivated to learn in schools that do not value their primary language or culture. Furthermore, experiential learning, with rich activities, with be more intrinsically motivating to learners than control-oriented, teacher-centered methodology. In my observations at Garcia Elementary, I witnessed many instances of control-centered methodology even when students were engaged in rich activities, but the teachers clearly valued the primary languages of their students. ~v‘1on1 *‘ H584II- .1..-‘; “ Id...“ 1‘ I F‘";°1.))v L0»u. t g-‘ an“. . I ‘:Hi[ IA] “‘1'!” 1.. y \~n.....‘\ ”3"nb-L “‘- “‘I“ “" ‘V I a I. '5» ... -‘» r ."‘-..: u-CI\‘..A ‘ 33 Valdes (1991) discusses the differing situations of elective and circumstantial bilinguals in her review of the literature on bilingual literacy. She points out that American bilingual minorities are circumstantial bilinguals who must learn another language to survive in the settings in which they exist. Their native language is not prestigious in their setting, nor is it the language of commerce or the majority language. Thus they must gain some mastery of the majority language to participate in the culture. They are in danger of losing their mother tongue as they develop proficiency in the majority language, and so are sometimes referred to as ”subtractive bilinguals.” (7) u-' ..‘u o .- "Jr on ..n "114... i - .,_ - o [.1 The total program at Garcia Elementary School in Fruitville was designed to capitalize on the successful features of immersion and two-way bilingual programs, while avoiding the ”in a vacuum” stance of traditional ESL approaches and the dangers of subtractive bilingualism. Like the United Kingdom minority language students described by McKay and Freedman (1991), the students of Garcia were mainstreamed, but with the support of primary language aides in their classrooms whenever possible. Like the students in European Schools, they received instruction both in their L1 (Swain 1981c) and in at least one other language, English. The Garcia Plan promised all students an Opportunity to learn an additional foreign language of their choice, although the curriculum had not deve10ped that far during my observation period. The Garcia Plan also promised that classes would be taught experientially, in a student-centered, activity-based mode, with small group, multi-level, multi- proficiency interaction, as recent researchers have recommended. Genesee, Holobow, Lambert and Chartrand (1989) make a very strong case for such student interaction in content-based immersion programs. 34 While every teacher at Garcia Elementary firmly believes in experiential learning, each one I observed also tended to fall into the classroom discourse habit of Initiation-Response-Evaluation, asking mostly known-answer questions and generally dominating classroom interaction. I found this phenomenon instructive, and illustrative of the cognitive dissonance that frequently accompanies change. I also believed it to be a result of the degree to which teachers were trying to implement new strategies. They were working so hard at controlling multiple variables to provide a classroom atmosphere that would nurture their students, they did not realize that their classroom control strategies sometimes got in the way of an optimum communicative environment. .... . ....dh.‘.;.1:. .. 1.1 H To Cazden (1972, 1988) both student and student-teacher interaction, classroom discourse, is essential to learning and to achieving the crucial objectives of education. She sees language as the means for developing all concepts, especially in a classroom that provides concrete experiences. Citing Vygotsky, Cole and Brunet, Cazden states that it is grounding in experience that fosters motivation of the sort needed for acquisition of a second language. ”Reactivating language-leaming abilities necessarily means harnessing children’s motivations as well. Here as much as in teaching strategies, is where the problems of minority-group children may lie” (177). Heath (1983) discovered that the nonconscious sociological and linguistic training of pre-school children by their parents left them with communication patterns peculiar to the two communities she studied, and different from their teachers, who tended to be ”mainstreamers.” Heath found it necessary to coach teachers in communication strategies tailored to their students. When she coached teachers, both student performance and teacher T ' ‘~' I." ,. "‘55-¢ 35 perceptions of student aptitude changed for the better, at least while she was available to reinforce the change. Though they differed in dialect and style from one another, the students in Heath’s research all spoke English as a native language. When children in a classroom speak a variety of languages, as they do in Fruitville, Valdes (1989) and Gundlach, Farr, and Cook-Gumperz (1989) caution that teachers must become ”’ethnosensitive,’ rather than ethnocentric" and that they must employ literacy activities that ”help children use what they bring in acquiring ’mainstream’ skills” (89). Reclassification of ”limited English” students as ”fluent” means that they not only speak English fluently, but they read and write it fluently as well, at least in academic contexts. Woodward, Harste, and Burke (1984) tell the story of Latrice, a three-year-old African American child whom many educators might have labeled a child without language. The authors illustrate what Latrice does know by the time she comes to school, and assert that the salient factors of preschool literacy are the ” availability and opportunity to engage in written language events,” not income and status (42). The point of their illustration is that educators need to question the deficit model of education and the early, damaging tracking that can result from it. The focus of my research is on teacher behavior at Garcia Elementary, and not on literacy itself. Still, a real issue at stake in the education of language minority students, indeed of all students, is the shifting definition of literacy. A large number of writers, some of them researchers and others more popular theorists, have struggled with the definition of a literate person. Resnick and Resnick (in Kintgen, Kroll and Rose, 1988) note that their historical research reveals ”a sharp shift over time in expectations concerning literacy" (190), from forming the letters of one’s name in a signature to reading aloud without errors, I l '9'!“ 17h '3 rehtul “1“, H ‘ “il'mnr h 1 ”I ‘ a4t‘d «shut. I , . ’7 ‘9‘ I. F. n... le‘b’ . AWL b5 l‘I uEIC‘ "JR .A‘h ’ _’ :hpO‘IL. la. 21' I L nth ‘9)“- F ”“u n I W". ‘1 “it 50:01.3 I V ”‘7”. _ h in. ,f‘\\ 1 ~~H€ nkfll’ ,- 1 in I 4:. CL: “Ff-I DIL- A I a a ,- “59,. it scuff ac " .v ...-'33) 1““.“ . “H ”.1 "Si: in \II‘ «1ij l" . ‘I. 3|"? _ ‘ ...S‘l‘h-s1 L‘ 5.;E".‘ 31‘15‘5 en’] . “I: CWT-q .‘ . ‘. ~1”:.a"~ dlL 3‘3“; . 36 to recent definitions that include ” the ability to read a complex text with literary allusions and metaphoric expression and not only to interpret this text but to relate it sensibly to other texts....” (192). British educator Margaret Meek (1987) writes of critical literacy, ”a supercharged model which allows its possessors to choose and control all that they read and write...” and "includes the ability, the habit even, of being critical , that is, of making judgements, especially about the writing of others.” (10, emphasis hers) She goes on to say that her goal for literacy education is that all children are empowered by such critical literacy. Shannon (1990) would no doubt describe the goals of Garcia Elementary school as a marriage of the child- centered proponents of education and the social reconstructionists. He describes the latter as those who want to use schools to solve the social inequalities of America. Donald Macedo (in the introduction to Courts, 1991) warns against the business of literacy research ” owned by the military-industrial complex” -and agrees with Courts that ”neatly prepackaged” reading and writing programs can result in illiterate literates (ix). Willinsky (1990) calls ”the New Literacy” a ”way of working the world” (6) for students. To achieve that goal, teachers must be coaches, editors, agents, publishers, and students must be meaning-makers, authors, and scientists. This New Literacy does not equal competency on standardized tests at arbitrarily set levels, but is concerned with purpose and intent of language use. ”The New Literacy consists of those strategies...which attempt to shift the control of literacy from the teacher to the student; literacy is...a social process with language that can from the very beginning extend the students’ range of meaning and connection." (8, emphasis his) Although Elena never articulated her dreams for language minority students in exactly those terms, the components of her ”Garcia Plan” called for the sort of teaching Willinsky describes. 37 A complicating factor for the staff of Garcia Elementary was the group psychology which their young charges inevitably brought to school, according to anthropologist John Ogbu (1988). Ogbu questions traditional deficit and mismatch views to explain why some minority students do not succeed, at least measured by standardized tests, in reading, writing and computing. His work credits Labov’s (1972) careful discourse analysis that showed that black dialect was different from the standard dialect of the school, but that black students’ ways of thinking were nonetheless viable and logical ways of learning. But Ogbu questions Labov’s idea that mismatch between the language of home and school accounts for children’s failing to learn school subjects. Instead, Ogbu argues that educators have failed to distinguish among types of minority groups. He classifies them into ”autonomous, castelike and immigrant” types, with different strategies for survival in schools (232). By Ogbu’s definition, Garcia Elementary was most heavily populated with immigrant types who welcome American schooling as a venue for improving their children’s chances for traditional success in life. Ogbu argues for a political view of literacy (242). Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz (1992, in Beach, et al), discuss misconceptions that have fueled the approach to literacy education for minorities. They reject deficit models, and call for new research that would chart the " process by which theories of educability are put into daily practice, and to uncover the implicit theory of learning that underlies classroom strategies and that informs the teachers’ practices and the schools’ policies” (173). Hull, Rose, et a1. (1991) have done the sort of research Cook- Gumperz and Gumperz recommend on tum-taking behavior of teachers at the college level. They believe that the way the teacher directs tum-taking can reveal unconscious old concepts of deficit rather than newer difference explanations for a student’s behavior. They warn that teachers must constantly question their .... n“ “(x 4343' ”\‘IL. I an" turn-T- ppd Ha 0| 1 l I ‘ ‘ tar... 1211:- '3‘? i . I an I ' ‘1 h j ' ' . din-lam as “A wk 38 assumptions to embrace fully a philosophy of difference rather than deficit. (25) Research in cultural differences (e. g. Philips, 1972; Au and Jordan, 1981; Heath, 1983; Giroux, 1983; Ogbu, 1988) represents advances in thinking, but ”older deficit-oriented explanations for failure can exist side-by-side with these newer theories, and, for that fact, can narrow the way such theories are represented and applied, turning differences into deficits, reducing the rich variability of human thought, language and motive” (14). Hull, et al. state that teacher expectations of student abilities can have ”profound effects” (18) that may be evident only through fine-grained discourse analysis of the transactions in classrooms. They caution that any researcher’s work may be flawed by unexamined assumptions: ”The problem is that all American educational research — ours and everybody else’s-emerges from a culture in the grips of deficit thinking, and any analysis that delineates differences will run the risk of being converted to a deficit theory” (24). They go on to say that ”we need to look at the social and instructional conditions in the classroom rather than assume the problem is to be found in the cultural characteristics students bring with them” (24). Giroux (in Shannon, 1992) argues for the philosophy of ” possibility” and adds that it is ”important that teachers learn to confirm student experiences so that students are legitimated and supported as people who matter, who can participate in their learning, and who in doing so can speak with a voice that is rooted in their sense of history and place" (16). Anne Haas Dyson (1991) agrees. She tells the story of Jameel, an African-American boy who needs to perform, in addition to communicate, in school writing activities. Dyson concludes that if ”a school curriculum is to be truly responsive to diversity, truly child-centered, it must be permeable enough to allow for children’s ways of participating in school literacy events” (29). .;.' . ‘ ?‘ minke tkl-at 31:39.“. to lea 1 . master. a“ I'd“ 1 she ass rm .~T ' . 1.3“..6 131$ 91' 't h women my; In until 191: 1 7'9?“- ...:.1:e-hase “'1. : 3°35 arec ( 'l‘k A “j.- 0‘ ”a . r'u Amt \ .«p..‘ t ‘ . I: a 39 While other researchers and writers (e. g. Labov, 1972; Goodman, et al., 1987; Ogbu, 1988; Delpit, 1988; Hawisher and Soter, 1990; Hull, Rose, et al. , 1991; Stuckey, 1991) decry deficit theories for explaining differential performance in literacy, other influential voices support deficit explanations. Chall (1990) cites Bernstein’s (1959, 1960, 1971) research on restricted and elaborated codes as evidence that ”lower-class children are much less likely than middle-class children to learn to use an elaborated code" (3). While she goes on to say that Bernstein attributed this deficiency to lack of instruction rather than lack of ability, she asserts that ”this lack of command of an elaborated language code among lower-class children would...put them at a disadvantage in reading” (3). She recommends direct teaching of phonics in the early grades, with the use of both basal readers and trade books (149). She argues that newer, ”enriched, literature-based beginning reading programs...may be less effective unless such programs are combined with the structure and appropriate challenge provided by most textbooks” (19). Her work directly contradicts the written plan by teachers at Garcia Elementary, who agreed to operate without textbooks except for higher grade social studies, where texts were required by the district. Harste (1989) favors a program like the stated Garcia philosophy; such a program should allow a collaborative construction of curriculum by teacher, child, and preferably, literacy researcher (8). Robinson and Stock (1990) also argue for literacy education through students’ own language and their own texts (311). Goodman (1986) does not support a deficit model, but he is aware of the power of those who do. He notes that the disease metaphor for working with problematic readers and writers has been especially prevalent at the elementary level, particularly where school programs revolve around basal readers. "When pupils don’t do well in a technologized reading and writing program, it’s assumed there must be something wrong with them” (55, emphasis 40 his). Goodman lists the language of medical pathology that describes such problems— disabilities, clinics, prescriptions, diagnosis, treatments, remediation, dyslexia. ”But after all the diagnosis, the treatment is remarkably uniform: take two phonics exercises three times a day. That’s because the pathology of reading failure knows nothing about the reading process or reading development” (55). Goodman recommends a new way of thinking he calls ”revaluing,” growing out of whole language philosophy. He says only two objectives exist in a ”revaluing” program. The first is to ” support pupils in revaluing themselves as language learners, and to get them to believe they are capable of becoming fully literate." The second applies to the process of reading. Goodman suggests that teachers ”support pupils in revaluing reading and writing as functional, meaningful whole language processes rather than as sequences of sub-skills to be memorized” (56). Such meaning-centered learning was the goal of the Garcia Plan. Marie Clay of New Zealand has become famous for inventing Reading Recovery, a complex (and patented) strategy for avoiding remediation. Her methods were imported to the United States by Ohio State University during the 1984-85 school year. In one of her more recent books (1991), she explains her belief that all readers can learn the strategies of good readers. ”In the past we have explained failure to learn to read in terms of lack of certain competencies in poor readers, blaming the learner or his background” (4). She believes that today’s operable question is ”what now needs to be explained about reading and writing that helps the good reader to become better as a result of his own efforts...?" (4) The statement on the front cover of the Reading Recovery Executive Summary, published in the United States from 1984 to present, is, ”If children are apparently unable to learn, we should assume that we have not as yet found the right way to teach them." v "V. l' A ...u‘il .“ . A. “-au- \ § I “- ‘1- ;“'~ . . 'u..__‘: '35“ A - k -150- Lari: h l'n. ‘* M11 .1,“- , §_':) .14 F . u . \‘u."\ 5“ C I. O N" ‘. \, 1. 3 I-‘~ N““ v. s “ . 54 41 Some of the best practitioners in the US share Marie Clay's beliefs about literacy, and believe further that the key to literacy is to make language study transparent, across the curriculum. As Nancie Atwell states in the introduction to WUWO), ”In the best of all possible worlds, language study might no longer be isolated as a separate subject in our curricula" (xxi). No need would exist for writing and reading workshops because ”students and teachers would be writing and reading everything all day long: poems, plays, stories, essays, lists, articles, autobiographical sketches, and journals about math, literature, history, the sciences, life ” (xxi, emphasis hers). In such a curriculum, ”writing and reading are learned in the richest possible context and appreciated as tools of the highest quality for helping children come to know about the world” (xxii). The immersion program at Garcia Elementary boasted similar goals for literacy education across the curriculum. But the Garcia program also included ” triad time,” when first, third, and fifth graders or second, fourth, and sixth graders worked together to help one another learn. Cognitive psychologists Ann Brown and Joseph Campione (1990) call this kind of approach ”reciprocal teaching,” and believe that it offers opportunity for students to learn and to model the strategies of good readers and writers. They oppose too much ” direct instruction with strong teacher control,” which they say leads to over-emphasis on lower-level skills. In such classrooms, ”students fundamentally misunderstand the goal of early education; they come to believe that reading is decoding and that math consists only of quickly rurming off well-practiced algorithms without error” (111). Brown and Campione write that such instruction is usually stressed even more for low-achieving students. What Brown and Campione would like to see instead is schools focusing on developing ”intelligent novices” (1990, 4), people who can think and reason, deal with information that is completely new, and I“ 1’92. " 5.. in t i 01; 42 who can learn from a variety of texts and situations. They add that in the right classroom learning environment, peers or older peers can guide less expert students through what Vygotsky (1978) called the zone of proximal development. Brown and Campione now recommend having students generate their own learning materials, in the process forming a ”community of learners” (1990, 21). Working without textbooks, many Garcia teachers hoped to create just such communities in their classrooms. Ann Rosebery and her colleagues at the Technical Education Research Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts are documenting not only the language progress of language minority students immersed in English in a science classroom, but the learning environment for both teachers and students when real inquiry is allowed to flourish. Rosebery et al. call one of their research projects ”Cheche Konnen,” the ” search for knowledge” in Haitian Creole. Their goal was for students not only to learn English through science, but to learn science as well. ”In this light language — both first and second languages - becomes a means for constructing scientific meaning” (1992, 62). In Cheche Konnen, teachers create environments in which students plan and carry out inquiries. The basic idea is that they ”do science.” Secondary students ”pose their own questions; build and revise theories; collect, analyze and interpret data; and draw conclusions and make decisions based on their research" (62). Through discourse analysis, the researchers then determine to what extent students appropriate scientific ways of knowing and reasoning, and to what extent they extend their language skills. Rosebery et al. stress that all collaborative inquiry is interdisciplinary. Mathematics, science and language are naturally melded in inquiry. They cite the research of Cazden, John and Hymes, 1972; Gee, 1989; and Heath, 1983 to make the point that ”we learn to use language in specific ways and situations to accomplish particular purposes, such 43 as to answer questions in school, to tell stories at the dinner table, to play with peers, and so forth.” The crux of Cheche Konnen is that ” through collaborative scientific inquiry, students expand their linguistic repertoire, in both first and second languages, to encompass the discourse of science” (64). Garcia Elementary School certainly embraced the theories of hands-on science, though pre—prepared units are no doubt too structured to fit Rosebery’s definition of true scientific inquiry. Still, Elena told me more than once that Garcia’s hands-on science lessons were occasions for much student conversation. Perhaps no one in recent memory has influenced discussions of literacy, especially for marginalized peoples, more than has Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. In his literacy work in the 19505 and early 19603 in Brazil, he organized ”circles of culture” to help adults kept out of the mainstream culture by their nonliteracy to lead more meaningful lives. Through the use of ten paintings by Francisco Brennand, Freire generated discussion designed to help adults understand that they could change their lives. Freire wanted nonliterates to understand that they are ”makers of culture as much as literate people are, that aspects of their lives are man-made and therefore subject to change” (Brown, in Shor, 1987, 217). According to Freire, the realization of his students that they are culture-creators is the first step not only in literacy but in conscientizacao, generally translated ”conscientization,” ”a process in which people are encouraged to analyze their reality, to become more aware of the constraints on their lives, and to take action to transform their situation" (Brown, in Shor, 1987, 225). Such consciousness-raising has the potential to lead beyond personal / individual change to collective revolution. For that reason, it is especially threatening to anyone in power who has a vested interest in keeping others powerless. I 't ’ I “m "HV.V _ flanking OI l1. r! ‘» “HA1” “p [mafil‘t Ox , 332:5-..Bee feel some fear -- mastitis pt‘fiapator}; reaction is d l r::‘jnq “has their h r"~. _ Um Ewen: L . it. .56" IN mum I u kal 5.5%}4 ”My“; EXP-8' 4 .. 5 3.. . .1. “.8333“ ll \. #23,; , NK‘ a in: ‘ ee l ‘~. Q‘s- 44 While Elena's school plan had no clear goals to politicize the thinking of her students and their parents, it might very well do so inadvertently. Education, according to Freire, is inherently political. ”I say that education is politics....Because education is politics, it makes sense for the liberating teacher to feel some fear when he or she is teaching” (Feire in Shor and Freire, 1987, 61, emphasis his). Freire’s model of education is based on inquiry, and it is participatory, centered on students and their concerns. All teacher-student interaction is dialogic, with students discovering the contexts of their own lives, reading their worlds. Freire’s model is, in fact, very much like the stated goals of Garcia Elementary School. He served older, but otherwise similar students. Even in a country where educators are unlikely to be jailed for professing such ideas, political danger lurks. Some of Garcia’s teachers, and certainly their principal, experienced political consequences of their approach to literacy and the attention it drew to their school. I El"'lll° l'Cl'E' In 1974, the US Supreme Court held that if Limited English Proficient children were taught in a language they could not understand, they were deprived of equal educational opportunities (Lau v. Nichols 414 US. 563). This ruling was codified in Section 1703(f) of the Equal Education Opportunities Act, which says, in part, that no state can deny equal educational opportunity to any individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, by ” (f) the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs" (20 USC Section 1703 f). Subsequent federal cases have created a three-part analysis for districts’ educational programs. These apply to districts serving one or more Limited English Proficient students. First, the v ~ g "".“‘1 w . Vuutddottasl -'n \‘ Q, 5. In , . ‘. MM um. n "”‘IJM N 9‘ “'bl‘de Al. 3] I 1. :W'H" 'N UOnlC "nh'u'L' Al in... . I .D? n t .c...._~ I. la; r i , W ‘0 t a N333.“ t I... V: I d s???“ ‘uaii ‘ " \ "a" ‘ “MEL“ | 5 W] fih'nm .Vu. “as thi :‘F‘ nth“: '1~.n \- l‘:‘\ m'l A I "a y .7th ‘ 1 en m t 45 educational theory on which programs are based must be sound. Second, the school district must provide the personnel, resources, and procedures to implement the theory in the classroom. Third, after a reasonable time, application of the theory should result in overcoming the English language barriers that impede the students’ progress, and must not leave them with a ”substantive academic deficit” (Honig, Program Advisory memo to districts, 1987). Bill Honig, California state superintendent of education at the time of these rulings, noted in a memo to districts how they should interpret the ”sunsetting” of the bilingual and other provisions of state Education Code Section 62000.2. Honig said that the minimum services districts must provide include identification of LEP students; assessment of the English and primary language proficiency of each language minority student; academic assessment of these students to see whether academic instruction in the primary language is necessary; offering to these children instructional programs that develop fluency in English both effectively and efficiently with equal educational opportunity, including, when necessary, instruction in the primary language; communicating to parents that participation in bilingual programs is voluntary; providing adequate personnel, practices, procedures, resources, and staff development to implement the programs for language minority students; providing inservice programs to give existing personnel the skills they need to serve LEP students; monitoring through testing and evaluation each student’s progress in achieving fluency in English; maintaining accountability for enabling LEP students, over time, to achieve in the regular instructional program; and maintaining parent advisory committees at both the district and school levels. Among Honig’s advisories was that ” districts should assess their current practices and consider modifying existing programs in ways which will result in improving LEP students’ academic achievement in the regular instructional programs” (1987 ‘ H 11‘ ”5:310: -k. ayaw~m O ‘ I I .n‘..aun “t a "1L- ....&SLI.'€’S. ll ‘ i”;‘9"" -l~ “stu. Ln 46 memo, 20). The state education department would support a trend toward more program flexibility and effectiveness. Honig suggested that districts take several measures, including considering a variety of approaches for serving LEP students; changing staffing patterns to deliver services better; avoiding any approach that would segregate LEP students, but realizing that strict LEP/ non- LEP ratios for classroom composition were no longer in effect; and considering a variety of strategies for involving the parents of LEP students (Honig, 1987). In 1985 and 1987, California court cases brought by a group calling themselves the Comite de Padres de Familia resulted in a mandated Coordinated Compliance Review for the State Program for Limited English Proficient Students. The state was legally required to conduct follow-up review of all districts that had a history of noncompliance with the state program for LEP students and that had an LEP enrollment of more than 1,000 students. Districts needed to prove that they had taken action to resolve their compliance problems. Comite plaintiffs argued that the 1987 changes outlined by Honig and the resulting sunset of Section 52177 of the state’s Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act (BBEA) of 1976 removed school districts’ monitoring obligations because they became judicially unenforceable. A July 1995 settlement of the Comite case specifically requires every-three-year onsite compliance reviews regarding a number of state and federal laws, including Section 52177. The state was made clearly responsible for auditing districts’ use of bilingual education funds, and for insuring that those funds are spent in accordance with the BBEA requirements. Also, the plaintiffs charged that state budget cuts had restricted the state’s review process to paper reviews in too many districts. The court agreed, and held that the state must conduct triennial onsite reviews in all districts having more 100 LEP students (practically every district in the state), and must require a district-wide remedy if two-thirds of the schools in the Qj‘fivv ‘D 1' i I Ha:nl\« :.Lll ' r1 .. . 1"“ "v n‘ i in ....u ‘( u. N .... q A _' 2w; m LL 1 . ... .u: hammer-z p. 5‘”. 2'1 “nu—LADnC ‘ i ...-uni “A ‘ Aunjnt L ‘ &« :.- vs l._ . “f‘ 563:1- ..r‘ L ‘ JIES'lEn' of 47 district are found in noncompliance (Ruling No. 281824, Comite de Padres de Eamflia et a1, 2, {be state Superintendent ef Public Instructien, et al., July 5, 1995) The process of the ongoing Comite review, modified as stated above in the July 5, 1995 ruling by the Superior Court of California in Sacramento, was described to me by an official of the California Department of Education Complaints Management and Bilingual Compliance Unit. In a telephone interview on 8 / 21 / 95, Norman Gold stated that the process is actually designed to assist districts in achieving compliance. Elena, in a telephone interview of the same date, told me that such reviews are terribly feared by districts, especially by school principals who have attempted innovative bilingual programming. Fruitville Unified was on the list for review during the 1994—95 school year. Elena believes that dread of the review process prompted changes in The Garcia Plan by the new principal, who had been assistant principal under Elena’s leadership. I will discuss these language policies and the changes at Garcia in more detail in later chapters. CHAPTER II THE CHANGE PROCESS AND TEACHER CHANGE CONTEXTS FOR THIS STUDY So far in this discussion, I have examined the dreams of a visionary principal for a new school —a school that, if her vision were realized, would serve far better than usual the population of school children the nation calls Limited English Proficient. I have also presented the research base and a portion of the political context in which Elena crafted her dream. Fruitville Unified gave Elena a chance to make her dream a reality. She received carte blanche to select her teachers, to immerse them in theories to support her ideas, to invite them to help design the program of her school. The district’s notable decision probably stemmed from a combination of Elena’s fine reputation as a principal and the frustration they had experienced with the burgeoning immigrant mix of their student body. Elena had thought so carefully about her plan that she appeared at her interview for the Garcia principalship with a chart of the school logo and 25 pages of text about her ideas (telephone interview, 3 / 27/ 96). That sort of enthusiasm and dedication must have made a positive impression. The magnitude of the Garcia Elementary change project may be less rare now, in the age of charter schools, but in 1991 in Fruitville Unified, it represented a major departure from the norm. This was, as I mentioned earlier, the first new school building in a decade in Fruitville, the first ever designed 48 W‘W‘ 1_ It “L‘u. Int \ U . RV 'h-1vvn91 \ -uululh ‘ N v ""“|""|‘:P‘1 ll-l slid-”L4; h aerefére. H are new am ha‘ aemom she was an s A l ‘P‘Q: “‘4th ROW 9“”... “O a\‘~:-a‘|‘ Or“ We me 3» 4 P“ .l‘m It ML “5:5. ‘\t s l , 3:" ‘MH my “‘- fiemt mya1." Dlax' u' 9.. . 4‘39} r A ' ‘ es. , l \I u? ’ ‘ .l :.l’b‘ a r ‘; I 'o I». hit-“L; 6‘“: 49 from the outset for year-round education. Elena was allowed to recruit teachers by sharing her vision, by interviewing them, and by watching them teach. No inv oluntarily transferred teachers were thrust upon her. She opened Garcia, therefore, with the explicit approval of her superiors and with the commitment of a new and excited staff. Elena was a proven quantity within the district; she ha (1 demonstrated success in leading change in her previous school. In addition, She was an eager learner and a quietly charismatic, collaborative leader. So many of the typical barriers to change seemed nonexistent in the Qiircia story. No distant entity had mandated this program or saddled it upon a reSistant or uncertain faculty. No building history of ” this is the way we've a1Vvays done it” had to be overcome. No vocal group opposed the change within the district. Elena and her eager band of pioneers could create their own culture and implement their creation. Regardless of how educational change projects begin, however, they all play out in the same way: eventually, the classroom doors close down a hallway on groups of one teacher and class. What happens then? The answer, of course, is ”it depends.” It depends on a teacher’s attitude about the change, on her willingness to risk and to continue learning, on the support network she enjoys, on her energy and stamina, and on many other predictable and unpredictable factors outside that classroom, especially the larger culture of the school and the district in which she works. A pessimist might say that an educational change project succeeds or fails behind that closed classroom door— and that the overwhelming majority fail. A more optimistic observer could say that the change project changes. Change is a process. A teacher’s response to a project is not black or white, change or not change. With the proper growth medium for the teacher, her response can evolve into something bigger and more successful than the project’s designers imagined. I' V ‘, vor- 6 1n- hllal .116 “A l ' I as -n V : IKKHEA 5 n‘. "' "wfi;)n. E \.l.|.t,.\ zircon d l‘hmm 5 u) hauler-lb I -’ .ed. researcl garish-"Ur,“ ‘ In t»; I“: .‘l h «311(1 ’ ~ A 50 W i th the improper growth medium, the change project withers and dies in the te a Cher’s hands. Whichever the outcome, the process takes time. Stanford educational historian Larry Cuban, a teacher and Superintendent before he became a researcher, documents 110 years of reform in his book T ht:C ns anc ndCh n einAm i anCl sr W (1993). Cuban asks why ”do so few instructional reforms get past the Classroom door?” (1). He observes that despite the three major reform efforts he C10Cuments over the past century, teaching seems remarkably stable, though little real research details what teachers do in classrooms. Cuban proposes a fl‘al‘nework of incremental and fundamental change for examining his larger .i., I ‘l\‘ .. : i‘u “_ n‘ “I“ H ‘-.‘ fi‘lvr ‘ “Ht . ”V 5%.? .N’ “ ‘hu. ?‘>- 51 arranged in rows of desks or chairs facing a chalkboard with a teacher's desk he a rby (7). In student-centered instruction, on the other hand, Cuban notes the following observable characteristics: 1) student conversation about learning ta sks at least equals (or is greater than) teacher talk; 2) most of instruction occurs in small or moderate-sized groups or individually, rather than with the whole Q1 ass; 3) teachers encourage students’ input in determining rules of behavior, reVvards and penalties and enforcement; 4) a variety of instructional materials and centers are available in the classroom for student use individually or in small groups; 5) at least half the time, students and teacher consult to determine the SCliedule for use of materials; 6) physical arrangement of the classroom shows no dominant pattern, and chairs and desks are rearranged frequently to facilitate Small group and / or individual work (7). These indicators, together with the amount of movement students are allowed (little in teacher-centered classrooms, much in student-centered ones) enable Cuban to identify the dominant instructional pattern when he observes. Cuban offers six explanations or arguments (he uses both terms) for why teacher-centered patterns of instruction persist despite major efforts to the contrary: 1) Deep-seated bias toward teacher-centered instruction in the minds of policymakers, teachers, parents and other citizens stems from cultural beliefs about the nature of knowledge, the process of teaching, how students should learn. 2) School has a powerful sorting and socializing function, usually not formally acknowledged, best served by teacher-centered instruction and traditional grading practices. 3) When reforms are ill-conceived or poorly implemented, teachers remain largely insulated from them. 4) Teacher-centered instruction is an efficient and convenient way of dealing with masses of students, as districts, schools and classrooms must do. 5) Teachers teach the way they ‘lfi‘i'phr . ,1 riulLlhk l .. I *1.«' ~— .,._I .4 'L ‘II\ I:- v. ‘ um; "Hui.“ a‘.“ NC I‘1 1'35. ‘ . .‘a. ‘0'} . r““ "M' . X. ' -. ‘ulW , . -\ .0 P! ‘ A ”2'5. nthfi 52 were taught, as they've served years of apprenticeship in that method before th ey take over their own classrooms. 6) Teachers' practices stem from their beliefs about the role of the school in society, about classroom authority and stu dents’ ethnic and socioeconomic status. He summarizes these explanations as: the environment (cultural inheritance and social functions of schools), the organizational (implementation of policies and the structures of schooling), occupational socialization (the nature of teaching, who enters the occupation, and future teachers’ long apprenticeship of observing their elders), and, finally, the individual whose knowledge and beliefs shape classroom behavior (20). Cuban adds that his first four arguments deal with why teacher- CeI'ltered instruction has endured. The last two suggest reasons why some I‘eforms have occurred. Cuban’s treatise deals with major reform movements: Progressivisim, from 1890 to 1940; open classrooms and alternative schools, from 1965 to 1975; and the recent push for raising academic standards, from the early 1980s to 1990. He examines major urban districts and rural schools, and ends with an analysis of constancy and change in teaching practices over the whole 110 year period. In a discussion of the phases of reform, Cuban notes that the impulse for reform usually comes from outside the schools, then, through a sort of negotiation process, gets converted to a shared, ”politically acceptable definition of what the problem is and how schools and teachers can solve that problem” (245). Generally, reforms are ”unevenly and erratically” implemented through the various levels of schooling, from state to classroom. In the end, the institution of schooling ”bends reforms to its purposes” (245). Cuban explains that teachers have situationally-constrained choice that accounts for ”both constancy and change in teaching practice” (261). . I .‘--h :' ‘ atc\l':‘\ u‘ .“'-'_ ‘l . I. ctrx;k A.“ J I -‘~1‘l I‘.‘ ..l iti‘t‘“ H ,.I - J- D! "‘3.“ “a. (gis‘ 'l ‘ l ‘P‘ ,':r"‘l 11m 01>‘J‘Il fixture 65 . ~§w"" jc“ugil0‘n|’ ‘ 3:113:35 163' 0 l‘h‘i O’\ A A m" ' db. "1‘“5 1 WW” II ’ . (hespeiia l m,: T..n tut- itdtflf 3'?- I | “~ ‘ A | . m~h — rho-31 re :19: some <" m :l .u t.‘ mmt‘j lull-h . \qul “l ‘ , “I s U. H; l ‘ I .4 51.3355 0f l fib: .» 53 Te a chers do have some autonomy. Key decisions made by others outside the C13 5 sroom include: size of the class; which students should take the class (or lea ve it); what extra help students get; length of the class period and school day; te achers’ daily schedule; texts used for the course; teachers’ assignment to grades and / or subjects; format and content of report cards; and use of standardized teSis. Decisions that can be made by the teacher include: arrangement of £11l_‘11iture (assuming movable furniture is available); grouping of students for instruction; who talks and when; degree of student participation in classroom activities; learning tasks; instructional tools used in given circumstances; and What topics in what order to teach (263). These situationally constrained choices Work especially well to reinforce teacher-centered instruction at the high school 1e\Iel. Teacher-made reforms at all levels tend to be hybrids of the options they are exposed to. The result is that since 1900, two-thirds of all teachers (90% of all high school teachers) have maintained teacher-centered classrooms, while 25% tried some student-centered ideas and a fraction, 5-10%, mostly at the elementary level, moved more solidly into student-centered approaches (265). The time and effort burden for making change falls ”squarely on the teacher’s shoulders” (267) regardless of who instituted the reform. Cuban targets the implications of his research at reformers, practitioners, and researchers. Implications that impinge on this study include predictions that teacher-centered instruction will continue to be pervasive as long as schools are organized as they are (top-down authority flow, age-graded, etc.), but that teachers will slowly adopt aspects of student-centeredness (277). Elementary schools will continue to be the most fertile ground for change to student-centered teaching, and high schools will ”continue to be the graveyard of serious attempts to move classrooms toward student-centeredness” (279). Practices that emphasize cooperative learning, whole-language instruction and '\n!-b— 4 o ‘- bu.u\.| p . “a... ‘ . ’ 4 a. \In. '4.- LL. Mum—‘~ - 4 . ‘9‘ ‘ I‘ll-luls . «0' “ _ (- . moll UV}... ’ linL.) l: 9“”- . p ’3 ‘ A."“IH. G n u- " . ‘\’l\9;' "1L“; ‘ k k“\- . _ __. IEBF‘,‘ '2" - \A“- 54 C a p acity-building of teachers will have better success rates than others (281). Cuban asserts that ”changing teachers’ attitudes needs to be closely bound to ta r1 gible school and classroom help in putting new ideas into practice” (281). A 25 % movement of teachers into student-centeredness should be viewed ”as a V i ctory” (282) because ”judging the effectiveness of an instructional reform re(allires an acute awareness of the limits within which teachers work” (282). Researchers need to remember that ”teachers are leaders,” but their ”leadership is Constrained” (283). Cuban decries the dearth of research on teaching practices, though he applauds the ”slow accumulation of classroom ethnographies, studies of illdividual teachers and students, and schoolwide portraits since the 19505" (285) that will help future historians who want to understand teaching practices. I:inally, Cuban asks whether and when researchers will know that change has been implemented fully enough to be considered change. He says that most reforms researchers study ”aim at fundamental changes in pedagogy....So when researchers come into classrooms for a week, a month, a year and observe only fragments of the fundamental change in action, they may conclude that these are additions to former practices, not fundamental changes” (287). Cuban adds that researchers tend to underestimate the power of the workplace and constraints and to overestimate the ”power of the innovation to alter teaching and learning” (287). He reminds researchers ”That teachers even initiate incremental changes in the face of considerable constraints speaks of their strong impulse toward improvement” (287). Cuban warns that since researchers publish and teachers tend not to, the researcher’s voice, not the teacher’s, is the one heard. Despite the pessimism about change with which one could read his study, Cuban ends on a note of optimism. He believes that his study’s findings ”suggest strongly that even within the seemingly unbendable structures of \ - -n LIP" NJ I All ' v nan-yrs' ll It sl- ltt‘ :1...:"‘ . “tumult "L- ...:7" 'HL 5. , H» ‘ n ' ”10% s \_‘ e‘! ., . ‘L 55 SC hooling built by previous generations a substantial minority of teachers made b0 th incremental and fundamental changes in their teaching practices” (289). Canadian researcher Michael Fullan has become a guru of Educational change theory. His 1991 book, The New Meaning of Educational Qhéngg, examines the problem of finding meaning in change. His basic question - IS how to get good at change—that is, how to increase the capacity of individuals and organizations to know when to reject certain change possibilities, to know when and how to pursue and implement others, and to know how to cope with policies and programs that are imposed on them (xiii, emphasis his). I:‘qllan asserts that the forces maintaining the status quo ”are systemic" (xiii). I{eal reform means ”changing the cultures of the classrooms, the schools, the C1istricts, the universities, and so on” (xiii). Fullan states that we frequently Confuse the terms ”change” and ”progress.” Not all change is good, and " resisting certain changes may be more progressive than adopting them, but how do we know?” (4) Fullan believes that the answer lies in development of ”shared meaning" (5, emphasis his). Because change is a dynamic process in a social setting, "how change is put into practice determines to a large extent how well it fares” (9). Rigid dedication to the specific form of change may make a change agent less effective in implementing it. In every case of educational change, ”the teacher as implementer is central” (11). But so is the principal. Fullan says that ” more lip service than mind service has been given to the pivotal role of the principal as gatekeeper or facilitator of change” (11). '1‘; 1' ultlu‘. UH ;. 1 I - a; - hol‘ >1 I '9'". :Y‘Fppl ““DA5AAl\iI . 56 In examining decisions about change, Fullan advocates asking two critical questions: 1) ”who benefits from the change (the values question),” and 2) ” how sound or feasible are the idea and approach (the capacity for the implementation question)” (17-18). Fullan points out that Intentions do not matter...if the quality or appropriateness of the innovation is not fully considered, or if the main sponsors of the program do not remain on the scene for more than a couple of years. One of the main consequences of introducing innovations is career advancement of the sponsor and subsequent failed implementation of the innovation (20). Like Cuban, Fullan classifies changes as first~order (affecting the efficiency or effectiveness of current practice) or second-order, altering fundamentally the Way ”organizations are put together, including new goals, structures, and roles (Q. g. collaborative work cultures)" (29). He points out that most second-order changes attempted since 1900 have failed. Fullan cites Marris’ 1975 research When he says that even though there is a difference in the implementation of voluntary vs. involuntary change, all real change involves loss, anxiety, and struggle. Failure to recognize this phenomenon as natural and inevitable has meant that we tend to ignore important aspects of change and misinterpret others (31, emphasis his). Fullan adds that ”the meaning of change will rarely be clear at the outset, and ambivalence will pervade the transition” (31). Given this fact, proponents of change (and researchers of it) need to understand that: Real change...whether desired or not, represents a serious personal and collective experience characterized by ambivalence and uncertainty; and if the change works out it can result in a sense of mastery, accomplishment, and professional growth. The anxieties of uncertainty and the joys of mastery are central to the subjective meaning of educational change, and to success or failure—facts that ‘ F M; ‘m -L‘~ y ‘1' $3.1,“ , P o udulf.\ ‘ J" ..Qh" ' I. , a l“l\ .‘ suw-«r ’ "HUG. . «.5 I ““ 0 .- LLB“: '\ r“ i ‘ ‘ ‘. .939 ‘l'flrw “bx..- I 57 have not been recognized or appreciated in most attempts at reform (32). Where Cuban referred to situational constraints of teachers, Fullan III Cites Huberman and Crandall in referring to the classroom press’" of teachers in the midst of change. This ”press” causes teachers to " ocus on day-to-day e_f_?“ects" of change, "isolates them from other adults,” ”exhausts their energy” and u l i mits their opportunities for sustained reflection about what they do” (33, emphasis his) . Sometimes the classroom press leads to ”false clarity” (35), in which teiZ-ichers think they have changed when indeed they have not. ”(F)alse clarity Qchrs when people think that they have changed but have only assimilated the Sllperficial trappings of the new practice” (35). By contrast, ”painful unclarity” QCcurs when vague innovations are implemented in conditions not supportive of C1Eveloping the ”subjective meaning of change” (35). Fullan explains that most people ignore the multidimensional nature of change. Any new program or policy risks 1) ”the possible use of new or revised materials”; 2) ”the possible use of new teaching approaches" and 3) ”the possible alteration of beliefs” (37, emphasis his). Fullan says that any change has to ”occur in practice” in all three dimensions in order for it to ”have a chance of affecting the outcome” of events (37, emphasis his). Fullan ends his discussion of the aspects of change with another assertion about meaning: Finally, while this may seem obvious, to say that meaning matters is to say that people matter—change works or it doesn’t work on the basis of individual and collective responses to it. Shared meaning...or ’interactive professionalism’... goes a long way in making significant change a reality (46). Fullan discusses change as occurring in three major phases. Phase I ”consists of the process that leads up to and includes a decision to adopt or proceed with a change.” Phase II, ”implementation or initial use (usually the ' out. "K" 5.1 “‘N-Uu‘sl ' I 1")". -\ -'., no 1." My; ‘\ ‘ r '5 " 'qr'?‘ |\ M ‘1‘ A- t I ‘3")! ‘ i “but; . ‘5 'l x. with-“ g . 58 first two or three years of use) —involves the first experiences of attempting to pu t an idea or reform into practice” (47). My research, then, was conducted at G arcia Elementary School during Phase I and early Phase II of their innovation. P11 ase III, also called "continuation, incorporation, routinization, or i1’Istitutionalization—refers to whether the change gets built in as an ongoing part 0 f the system or disappears by way of a decision to discard or through attrition” (48—49). Fullan emphasizes that change is a process, and that one change rarely Q'Ccurs at a time. Such complexity may be a good thing. ”While complexity Creates problems for implementation, it may result in greater change because IEIXQre is being attempted,” while ”simple changes may be easier to carry out, but t1\ey may not make much of a difference” (71). Fullan examines the roles of all I1"l£ajor players in the change process. Noteworthy is his statement that teachers and single schools can bring about change without the support of central administrators, but district-wide change will not happen....Teachers and others know enough now, if they didn’t 20 years ago, not to take change seriously unless central administrators demonstrate through actions that they should (74, emphasis his). vaiously, the main ”agents (or blockers) of change are the principals and tQachers" (76). Principals’ actions support teachers with resources and lbSychologically. The principal is the person most likely to be in a position to shape the organizational conditions necessary for success, such as the development of shared goals, collaborative work structures and climates, and procedures for monitoring results (76). Teachers influence change not only in their individual actions, but in their interaction with other teachers. ” Change clearly involves learning to do something new, and interaction is the primary basis for social learning” (77). Because teachers are inherently pragmatic, they have to ”have some t H"! V‘Q v- u‘:ue;.‘-31 \ . In“ W \nl - l' A iH‘...lfu\ U mas. *h' WWH‘HHH.‘ \t.l_. ‘Rid l‘ ‘ 1" -L"‘.: F” s‘A g.lfi‘-I\:C i-Atltzquqh‘ \vuu‘xl‘ :4 u,‘ 59 un derstanding of the operational meaning of the change before they can make a j u d gment about it” (128, emphasis his). For teachers participating in change projects, the ”difficulty of learning new skills and behavior and unlearning old Ones is vastly underestimated” (129), especially when changes are profound and affect the "teacher’s professional self-definition" (129). To negotiate change S'Ilccessfully, teachers need time to talk to one another. They need inservice t1‘aining to improve skills, but they also need to have ”one-to-one and group QIDportunities to receive and give help and simply to converse about the meaning Of Change” (132, emphasis his). The culture of the school must be QOIIaborative-teachers collaborating with other teachers and with administrators. Such a culture leads to ”career-long learning” (134) and SLlccessful implementation of innovation. Cultural change is the real ”agenda” of I‘eform (143). Fullan advocates a new ethos of innovation—one that has the ability to permit and stimulate individual responsibility, and to engage collectively in continuous initiative, thereby preempting the imposition of change from outside....The solution lies in critical masses of highly engaged individuals working on the conditions for continuous renewal, while being shaped by these very conditions as the latter evolves (353-54). Fullan’s description was very much the situation at Garcia Elementary during the time I collected data there. Garcia’s principal and staff Qomciously created an organizational culture that nurtured learning and positive Change. They began by changing the official designation of their students from Limited English Proficient to Linguistically Gifted Persons. Because this was a metaphoric change, a decision to use different language to indicate a different attitude, to some observers, it might seem minor. In fact, the change in metaphor I Ono yqfifin It hit .A...v| "WMI" ' I k'llulta‘ ‘1"‘fii1\i ‘t‘ ,4 L-.HJL“_U‘ I: '1 an? _' A HAIL 30‘4"] sKUl‘en-' l9. in: L 0r. ll 60 c: u t right to the culture of the organization. Rexford Brown, senior policy analyst for the Education Commission of the States, says that you begin to change people and Organizations through a change in language. If you want to change individuals, you usually have to make them conscious of things that are right in front of their faces, things that they cannot see while everyone else can. You often have to help them learn how to listen to themselves, how to recognize contradictions in what they are saying, patterns of expression that reveal underlying assumptions and ideas. So it is with changing organizational cultures: you start with language. You have to help the people in the organization listen to themselves and raise questions about what they hear. Are they speaking ’talkinbout,’ or are they sharing a language of learning? (234-35) Brown distinguishes between ” good” and ”poor” schools—in this Qarse, based on their encouragement of thoughtfulness in students —according to their style of communication for adults. ”Good schools are symbolically rich places,” Brown says, ”where vivid and interesting conversations are taking place hp and down the hierarchy.” Adults in such places are ”engaged in inquiry, discovery, learning, collaborative problem solving, and critical thinking.” Poor Schools, on the other hand, "are symbolically impoverished; people are mum or Secretive, isolated from one another or afraid to speak their minds.” He adds that ” Anyone who hopes to excite and challenge young people without exciting a lid challenging their teachers hopes in vain” (233). Brown observes that change ih most places comes down to ”’talkinbout’" (234). That is, people talk about Something but do not actually do it. feasten Dimenon. WW?“ I -- L’Lx . . “ I _.L‘ "ij mi... ’ vasn.7‘ a; 3‘ "‘6‘ “LG V ‘ '3 317155 .a l o flrznanon szsen: I, "s‘vn‘t 44““: ‘ l en tamenonr. ht .mter “J“ ' M W (1. ML KN axinfOr andhfuspere ('1 P ‘ Q “"93 dame Li~., MLOTcon \._ i{;e‘. 61 The language of teachers’ guides and curricular materials is a form of ’talkinbout’: a peculiarly stiff, jargon-ridden language of process, of how to do things. It is not a language of expression or reflection. It is a language of work and technique, oriented toward some narrowly (and often trivially) defined success, rather than toward achieving deeper understanding (234). Terrence Deal (1984) refers to such trivial change when he describes the advent of computers (seen as revolutionary) and other technology in the face of the nonchanging nature of classroom practice. Deal talks of two popular perspectives of change. One focuses on ”attitudes and beliefs of people and the norms that develop in small social collectives” (125). The other directs attention Qf organizational characteristics of schools— roles, goals, structures —as the a primary targets of change” (125). Deal holds that while these are rational e>lish the new school as a laboratory school for the local California State University department of education. Superintendents of the district and the county had already designated the school as a technology model for the 531‘ Joaquin Val ley, Business partners had committed to making monetary and / or human resources support for the school’s hands-on science, closed-circuit televisio n an Cl technology plans. Community groups, notably the Hmong 99 ColIncil and refugee organizations, had promised volunteers to assist with the SchoOl's extended day and adult literacy program plans. reads: A lOgo The new school’s vision, as stated in the SB 1274 grant application, To instill in students the intellectual, social and ethical insights they need to become fully actualized human beings: productive contributors to the economy, responsible citizens of our democracy and morally alert and fulfilled individuals. The essential means for accomplishing this vision consists of a curriculum and learning environment that promotes the development of character, responsibility for own learning and interdependence (1). (Figure 1) (an inverted triangle inside two concentric circles) embodying the Vision appeared on the second page of the grant application. As explained in the application, the inverted triangle represents Stanford University Professor Henry Levin’ s Accelerated Learning Model and symbolizes a ”’rocket ship,” the Vehicle that will deliver the Vision” (2). The outside circle expresses the school 5 "overarching goal” of language acquisition: for LEP students to develop cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in English and in the primary languages: and for Fluent English Proficient students (FEP) to develop basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) in the second or foreign language. The targets at the heart of the Vision are those spelled out very clearly by Fruitville Unified’s superintendent: to make significant gains in student achievement, drop-out prevention, attendance, parent satisfaction, and school safety....The triangle is configured with the apex rather than the broad side at the bottom to symbolize the empowerment of students, staff, parents and community and to illustrate a dynamic commitment to inside-out change. The triangle unifies the concentric circles to symbolize the integration of all programs and funding sources in order to provide all students access to a rich, meaning centered curriculum (2). 100 VISION wwflmbgwee A FOREIGR PRIMARY LANGUAGE ENGLISH Figure 1 School Logo 101 OGN Tl collaborative decision—making parents in partnership flexible scheduling teaching teams faculty committees for inquiry central office staff collaboration principal as facilitator articulation with other schooling levels ORGANIZATlON ACCELERATION Dr. Henry Levin Stanford University W active learning primary sources projects peer tutoring cooperative teaming educational technology attemativo assessment ex ploratoo, etectives . %ursewotk heterogeneous grouping language a (2: higher arc:er 08$ subieots Figure 2 Acceleration Model 102 Starr nn Lear i a Start Farmiy _ICSUI D Cavemen: Environment Relations involvement: Business- Omrmgee Committee Committee ,_ , education Partnership Committee Commmee \\ [glaring Committee School Vision Figure 3 Accelerated Governance Structures 103 Ideas the writers planned to use to achieve this vision included: 1) ” multi-age, mutilingual and multi-proficiency grouping...(as opposed to one— year graded grouping and English only instruction);” 2) teachers grouped in teams of three who will follow their students for two years each; (e.g. ”a team of 1 st, 3rd, and 5th grade teachers” will teach the same students for two years, and ” wi I] teach together so students may receive cross age tutoring, acquire accelerated learning habits and bond with teachers”) (3); 3) content areas of hands-on science and history-social science as ”core curricula with mathematics and language arts as tools of content-area learning;" 4) emphasis on ”moral, civic and character education and the development of a world view,” in part through environmental instruction; 5) ”use of sophisticated technology —hypermedia and linkway, computers, laser disk and interactive television, electronic, cable, and Satellite telecommunication— as tools for learning and communication;" 6) eXtending the school day an hour beyond the norm; 7) the ”development of adult literacy and of parents as teachers and leaders” (3). In addition, the school Would teach all students the languages of the school— ”English, Hmong, Lao, Vietnamese, Khmer, and Spanish” (3). Future plans included the addition of othEI languages, perhaps Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, and Italian, through telecommunication links with other countries, at least Japan, Mexico, Egypt, China, Italy, and Australia. With the assistance of on-site instruction by California State faculty, staff members could earn credit toward the Language 9" elopment Specialist Credential and, if they chose, a master’s degree. These ideas ”represent a 360 degree shift from current” Fruitville Unified practice (3). The writers acknowledged in the proposal that the school W0Illd be ”experimental,” as it would be trying ”highly risky but exciting Programs” (3) that would include having students and teachers wear uniforms - 104 ”another new and exciting proposition highly supported by parents, district S ta ff, and community” (3). If Larry Cuban had read the 1991 Garcia SB 1274 proposal, he would have recognized the plan as a fundamental shift in thinking about the ed ucation of language minority students. The Garcia staff called it a ” paradigm shift” that would begin with a ”redefinition of roles to enable the school community to engage all students in powerful learning experiences” (3). Their text defines the new roles, beginning with students, who will ”ultimately be responsible for their own learning" (3). Instead of the teacher-centered ”one-way teacher to student infusion of knowledge” of the past, the new school would offer ”multifaceted learning where the student will be provided with many Choices and guided to make responsible decisions for his / her benefit as well as f 01‘ the good of the entire learning community” (3). Using an example from sixth grade social studies, the proposal explained that a student preparing to 0 demonstrate understanding of how early man fulfilled basic survival skills” II‘ight explore ideas with a teacher, then plan the project from ”amount and allocation of time" to use of technology, to ”checkpoints along the way, and to presentation and evaluation of his / her work” (4), which could occur with a VaI‘iety of peer and adult audiences and in the student’s choice of languages. “The only choice the student will not be allowed to make is to fail to accomplish the desired outcome” (4). Teachers are described as including all ”auxiliary staff, paraprofessionals, student teachers, classroom volunteers” and accorded the role of a major decision-makers in determining learning outcomes, appropriate curl‘iculum, and instructional strategies” (4). Decision-making would be collaborative, with teachers working with other teachers, business partners, other district personnel, university partners, etc. Teachers are described as ”facilitators 105 of learning rather than primary purveyors of knowledge" — "the pilots of the a ccelerated learning vehicle" and ”nurturers of character and interdependence" by creating a positive learning environment to build student self-worth, establish community, and ”make meaningful connections with the home, community, and o u tside world" (4). The document confirmed that for teachers to play these roles, they would need a supportive culture that includes ignoring rules of ” compliance and tradition” in favor of ”power, prestige, training and compensation” (4) not found in the norm. Although the proposal promised no Specific compensation plan, it did promise a broad reading of the rules and regulations in the district’s collective bargaining agreement to see how practices Could be altered in positive ways. Administrative roles were also redefined in the proposal as a Primary leaders and communicators of the Vision, composers of broad-based Coalition and support,” and ”managers of the allocation of funds and utilization of resources” (4). Rather than top-down decision makers, they would be ” facilitators in the formation of leaders," as one of the emphases of the school wot—11d be to bring out leadership in ”all members of the school community to e1T1130wer them to fulfill their redefined roles” (4). A high priority for administrators will be making the school ”’a great place to work’" for both ” e1Tlployees and volunteers” (4). Parents would also have key roles in the new school. They would be a effective school partners in the education of their children,” a departure from the llsual for parents of language minority students, who typically have limited 13‘nglish skills themselves. The school would reach out to parents, making them feel that ”they are an integral part of the school" through adult literacy programs, ”parent participation in school governance,” and inviting them to Serve as ”teachers and leaders” in the extended day program. Extended day 106 a ctivities would include ”cultural and intergenerational issues between American-born/ raised children and their root culture-bound parents and elders" (4-5) . To address parental issues, the proposal pledged to offer neighborhood ’ as well as school site meetings...in the primary languages to minimize the linguistic and cultural barriers to effective communication and interaction” (4). Finally, community leaders and business and higher education partners were assigned the roles of ”stockholders in the school,” ”conveyors of the Vision to the community at large" (5). To play their roles, they would need to visi t the school frequently and participate in school activities and functions. They would also receive ”’school progress reports I” and be ”continuing pal-triers" in the school's efforts at ”planning, implementation and improvement" (5) - Although all staff members had not been hired when the 1991 SB 1274 document was drafted, selection criteria for staff were explained. Staff Would be hired based on their ”track records as highly effective teachers and acil'I‘liru'strators" (5). Those on board at the time the document was written were already engaged in ”synergistic" coalition building with parents and partners, as Well as with the new superintendent and other district personnel, who are described as ”highly supportive and enthusiastic” (5). While a team of 35 a te‘Elchers, parents, district administrators, business partners, community leaders, uni‘lversity professors and the school principal” developed the proposal, ”actual Wri ters” were ”a teacher, two university professors, a (corporate) executive, and the School principal" (5). Partnership commitments made before the drafting of the proposal lnclllded the university’s agreement to conduct methods classes on-site at the Sch001; to allow students in the teaching program to practice at the school; to ta“or their masters and / or credential program for school staff so that teachers 107 could take courses on-site and through a telecommunications link with the university; to recruit minority teachers that represent the languages of the school and establish an internship program for them; to use interactive television to ” vi ew classroom lessons;” to offer distance tutoring as needed for Garcia stu dents ”and college classes for staff;" and to collaborate with the staff to assist in planning and developing appropriate curriculum. By the time the proposal was drafted, corporations in the community had offered 1) financial support for getting nationally-ranked hands-on science training for a team from the school; 2) financial support for helping the school acquire hardware and software for the Writing to Read program in the early grades; 3) staff training for the use of teCIIriology; 4) design help for installing fiber-optic cable and a satellite dish on Si te; and 5) assistance in developing the social studies, math and science Curricula; and assistance in developing the adult literacy program. The Sontheast Asian community had offered support and personnel for the ”primary fOlf‘eign language component" of the Garcia Plan. The district component of the proposal was a pledge of support and limited intervention, a drastic reduction in its ”role in directing school programs” (1 of the district section of the proposal). The district was described as the third largest in the state, with growth of 3500 students per year. Of the new enrollees, half were described as from low-income families, with 44% on Aid to Families with Dependent Children. For 35% of Fruitville Unified Sh~1Clents, English was a second language. The district annual transiency rate was listed at 30% and the dropout rate at 33.6% (1). District performance goals adopted in 1990 and enumerated in the proposal included a number of measures in Sl‘udent achievement, dropout prevention, attendance, student safety and sch001 climate (see Appendix B). An outside consulting firm had recently reViewed the district’s central office procedures and recommended changes in 108 performance incentives, administrative authority, resource use, technology, personnel practices, stability of district leadership, concentration on common organizational goals, accountability, communication, and orientation toward serving schools. The district committed to a major restructuring effort to address these issues (see Appendix B). District commitments included a statement that the new school would be allowed to use up to eight staff development days for planning (7). 'n ' 1’ r on is i tat n nd it S urc In addition to the proposal in the SB 1274 grant proposal, Elena felt Strongly that she should have a personal mission statement to share with staff, parents, business partners and the larger school community. Her statement (Figure 4) includes the school logo and an explanation of her personal goals, which are closely aligned to the school’s goals. They reflect her belief that administrators should be setting the vision, empowering teachers, linking the SC11001 with district administration and with community partners. An understanding of Elena’s philosophy requires an examination of her life experience. In her late forties at the time I met her, Elena had been born in the Philippines to parents who were working professionals (mother an elelIientary school principal and father a bank administrator), Elena was edl~lcated in the Philippines until her sophomore year in college, when she was reel‘Iiited by a Roman Catholic priest to become a lay missionary in Latin America. ”At age eighteen I left my native country for good to pursue good Works, freedom, and adventure” (Biographical Summary, 1). There she was assi gned to work in northern Peru. ”My job was to seek the poorest of the poor in Order to enable the parish to equitably distribute food and clothing donated by “‘9 people of the United States” (1). After six months of this work, Elena was 109 reassigned to the Bolivian rain forest, where she " taught elementary and adult school among Quecha and Aymara Indians" (1). Already a speaker of Ilocano and Tagalog, Spanish and English, Elena completed that assignment and moved to California, where she finished college as a Spanish major. When she joined the F rui tville Unified Schools, she taught at the elementary level and was ” one of the first teachers to receive a bilingual specialist credential" in English—Spanish. ”It wa s at this point in my life when I decided to devote my career in service to language minority and ’educationally deprived’ students and parents in the United States." By 1972, Elena was a bilingual teacher at a second elementary school in Fruitville; by 1978 she was language arts resource teacher at a third, Where she became the assistant vice principal three years later. About that time, She was reassigned to a fourth elementary school, one in the heart of the ”sudden mflux of Southeast Asian students from the refugee camps of Thailand” (1). The refugee students, then pouring into the district at the rate of 5,000 per year, Presented ”almost insurmountable problems to the district in terms of facility, teeCher readiness and curricular programs.” Elena was ’” drafted’ in 1980 by FUSD to oversee the development of a Master Plan for Bilingual Education to be L1Sed as a district guide to address the needs of Hispanic students as well as the newly arrived refugees.” She spent much of her time doing staff development in ” Erlglish as a Second Language and Hispanic and Asian cultures.” During this time, Elena earned a master’s degree in sociolinguistics and second language acquisition from California State University (1). Then, in 1985, Elena was appointed principal of a West Fruitville Elel’I‘tentary school made up almost entirely of African-American students, an 2thT‘u’c group with which she had little experience to that point. The school was low-performing, and her job was to turn it around. ”It was perhaps out of desperation that I began to reach out to the African-American and business 110 communities" (2). The first partnership effort she spearheaded was the development of ”a comprehensive Assertive Discipline Plan which in two years became a model for the district.” She brought in community volunteers to work a s mentors with students. She also began to ”implement a technology plan and a p plied for numerous grants, some of which were awarded to us" (2). One corporate partnership in particular matured into a joint venture that enabled Elena to change her school's curriculum to an emphasis on hands-on science and social science-history. Corporate scientists helped ”deliver the science program in the classrooms" (2). By then, when I met Elena, her school was perpetually among the top of the district performance list in attendance and parent involvement, and she was working on student achievement. In 1991, she was appointed principal of Fruitville's newest school, Garcia Elementary. One of her first acts was to put together a ”’Steering Committee” of partners from three Corporations, the university, community volunteers, and prospective teachers to Craft a vision for the new school and a preliminary site plan. One month before the opening of school, Garcia was formally designated as a model school of technology for Fruitville County and as a professional development school for the School of Education of CSU, Fruitville. Through an extensive teacher selection process, thirty six outstanding teachers were selected from a pool of over 100 applicants. We opened our four-track year- round school with a population of 1100 ethnically diverse preschool through sixth grade students on August 13, 1991 (2). An avid reader of professional literature, a reflective lifelong learher who believes that education has much to learn from the world of business, Elena had drafted her personal mission after reading two works that had recently influenced her corporate partners — Peter Senge's 1990 book ,Ihe WW, and Stephen CWay's 1989 book, WW2. Covey 111 a dvocates living according to a personal mission statement. His concentric drawing of his concept of ”Circle of Concern" (83) and his idea of interdependence (185) had been profoundly influential on Elena’s thinking, as ha d his notion of ”inside-out" learning (309). Also part of her thinking was Cov ey’s approach to time management. He discusses four quadrants of time management (151), from Quadrant I's reactive responses to crises (the typical f i re-fighting life of a school principal); to Quadrant II’s planning, relationship bu i1 ding, recognizing new opportunities; to Quadrant III's dealing with interruptions, mail, reports, pressing matters and ”popular activities” (151); to Quadrant IV’s trivia, busywork, ”time wasters” and ”some pleasant activities" (1 51 ) . Elena wanted to address the challenge put forth by Covey - "not to ril‘larlage time, but to manage ourselves” (150) —for greatest effectiveness. She Wanted her own time and that of other administrators at the school to be Concentrated in Quadrant 11 action, which Covey labels ”high leverage, capacity- building activities” (154). The school’s logo neatly captured these ideas, along with her tra ining in sociolinguistics, her belief in the concepts of Henry Levin’s ACCelerated School Model and her interest in character education, as discussed in another work she had studied, a 1991 publication of W W edited by her friend and California State UniVersity Professor Jacques Benniga. In a community plagued by crime and teellaged gangs, Elena wanted to instill values that would protect her students and guide their decision-making after they graduated from Garcia Elementary. Bel1t‘liga’s philosophy is that moral and character education differ from the much-maligned values clarification movement because ”their approaches do not atteInpt to be value-free; they assert the validity of values such as democracy and lustice” through exercises that create ”community” in the schools in the way 112 J ohm Dewey proposed (13). As Benniga explains in his introduction to the book, ” by involving students in the very fundamental processes of school life, the school environment fostered the values of hard work, cooperation, responsibility, and caring—values fundamental to informed participation in the larger democratic society” (14). Elena had heard a presentation on Levin’s Accelerated School model at a conference, and had immediately contacted his staff to investigate Whether her new school could be part of his project. While she opted not to join the network officially because of the amount of her own time that would be required in attending meetings out of town, Elena incorporated Levin’s philosophy into her planning. By spring of 1991, as Elena worked on her vision, Levin published a newsletter. Volume 1, Number 2 is called ”Getting Started," and describes an accelerated school as a high energy place where all children are ” in the educational mainstream” and ”change occurs in the school as a whole rather than in isolated classrooms, grade levels or programs” (1). The brochure warns that the ”exciting journey” to an accelerated school can take ”five to six years as schools work on designing and implementing the changes which will enable them to achieve their vision” (1). The process for creating an accelerated school is explained as ” taking stock, creating a vision, identifying priority challenge areas for action, and creating governance structures,” and takes ”three to five months to complete” (1). The three major principles of the accelerated school model are ”unity of purpose, empowerment coupled with responsibility and building on the strengths of students, staff and parents” (3). The brochure describes in depth the first pilot school, Daniel Webster Accelerated School in San Francisco, and describes the emerging process at the second pilot, Hoover ACCelerated Elementary School in Redwood City, CA. A box on page 11 touts the first test results from Hollibrook Elementary School in the Spring Branch 113 Ind ependent School District, near Houston, Texas. The school sounds much like Garcia, with 97% of its 1,000 students on free and reduced lunches, 84% coming to school speaking no English, and 90% from low-income, Hispanic families. Scores at the outset of the program, in 1988, put fifth graders at Hollibrook at the 4 - 8 grade level on composite scores on the SRA standardized tests used in Texas. Fifth graders had scored at the 5.8 grade level in the spring of 1991, with composite reading and language arts scores of 5.2 and 5.6, ”a gain of almost two grade levels in just three years” (11). In most other subjects, students were scoring at about grade level, with mathematics at 6.6 grade level (11). While a critical reader of Levin’s brochure might point out that grade-level increases from test scores are only valid when the same group of students is tested repeatedly, or the groups of children can be proven to be comparable, the score increase looked attractive. An increase in standardized test scores was among Elena’s goals for her own student body, in part because it is the district’s and the public’s most frequently used measure of student achievement. In the last paragraph of her Biographical Summary, Elena reiterates her vision and sense of mission for the new school: My personal mission is to lead my school community toward actualizing our vision. My goal is to achieve national recognition for our work in turning out highly successful Linguistically Gifted Persons or ’LGPs' (better known as Limited English Proficient students or LEP). I want to see our LGP students advance in a caring and nurturing environment that will guide their growth and development from preschool through 12th grade-with their self- esteem, identity, and primary language intact. I want to prove through Garcia School that there need not be any conflict between the teaching of American history and the ethnic history of our students, and between the acquisition of English and the maintenance of the primary language- that these, in fact, will be necessary elements in the education of our children if we are to produce responsible American citizens in an authentic democracy and prepare future leaders in a globally interdependent world” (2). 114 I Elena’s Personal Mission Statement and the school 5 ”Family of La nguages,” taken from 1991 holiday greetings to parents and community partners in Elena’s school newsletter, follow in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. 115 PRINCIPAL'S PERSONAL MISSION STATEMENT lt ls personally satisfying to establlsh a school that develops character, responslblllty for learnlng, and Interdependence. Goals To enehle ell students to commoelceto effectively ln English end In their pdsneru tongueges end to otter ell monollnguol Engllsh snooker: the opportunltu to acoutre e second lenguege. To orevtde en lestrectlenel model thet ecceleretes leerntng through mesterg or cteecty deflned outcomes. To oreolde en oeeretlenel model of Interdependence through them-ego. multltlngool. sod moltl-orotlclencg level grooolng end coooeretloe looming etrotogles. ‘l‘o occomollsh wlthln the tlmo specltlsd the Sunsclntsndent‘s flue gosls ln student ochleoement. ettendence. drop-out prevention. parent sotlstoctton. end campus setetg. To IIIDOInt‘ oerents to become more ettectteelg lneotved to their children‘s ’Chooflng thcough oeront educetton. lneoloemeot. end school gooemnce. To ecttoolg seek oetslde resources through gronts end oortnershlns mtth "“0038. hlgher oducetlon. end cemmonltg orgenlzetlons end egencles. Figure 4 Principal's Personal Mission Statement 116 THE — F.-\MlL't' 0F LANGU AGES , 49'9“." Symwfigw" but. eI It”? Wigs-’W’Vfiw e I) I an)“, ‘ G‘Ubbngmmgm-x tow WW Naaivnormsia "ghmvfinghmdaaihziuxbm ' mbuo ' v m ' . "'YW'thrneihmbmWi5".ye'hmlaaamgtxm nyunc duqv haih nyunc. (MlEN-LAUX, 7mm by 'XXXXXW Parent) r and" at s - saw no“- ' n9 mmmgmg na ‘ 53W.) W . , aware Wt '0‘! WW ”q?“ “affirm? “I 5' W' 5"? BL OF “E ” 5‘ h‘h vt’léng “Awwaem ’ la (1an m3 [“63 giang sinh thalvui v5 v5 méfiSég‘ £5552)! - ' Th8 (”1“chng ETN AM. ‘rans‘a‘ed by XXXXXXXXXXI (VIETNAM . ”d. Nmmuwdxdas H y 1939““) ,. ' «molesb' W deals gm,- aw flow‘ “’3 ' 6‘ PM“ m‘me Wigner-WM Mala-«WW mew less-Wu MW Wm! mLm man Is Mutants pltdhllm s *- w W w Ass-Item ) Figure 5 The Garcia Family of Languages CHAPTER V PORTRAITS OF SIX TEACHERS IN TRACK D Where Teachers at Armando A. Garcia Elementary School had been through a rigorous selection procedure. Elena and two professors from Califomia State University had first made a video about her vision for the school. “men they had received permission from the district administration to publicize the new school throughout the district. They advertised a series of informational meetings, then met with interested teachers at the district Informational Media Center. At the meetings, Elena and at least one of the professors showed the video and explained the program. At the close of each presentation, they gave teachers forms to fill out indicating whether they were interested in being considered for transfer to the new school. Elena and at least one of the professors interviewed prospective teachers, asking them during the interview for an opportunity to observe their teaching. Elena then reviewed personnel records on teachers under serious consideration, contacted their current administrators for recommendations, and requested permission to observe the teachers. Then she and at least one of the Professors observed each candidate and made a hiring decision. The process of hiring all 36 teachers took four months. During that time, as new staff members came on board, they, too, participated in the interview and selection process of their peers. 117 118 Not surprisingly, six of the new teachers for the school came from Elena's previous school. In frequent contact with Elena, her former school staff ha d the greatest opportunity to be caught up in the excitement of the new project. All six of these teachers had been hired by Elena fresh out of college. They knew her leadership style, and she was familiar with them as teachers and learners. Elena heard about some of the remaining 30 Garcia teachers from fellow principals in whose buildings they were student teaching. Several she kinew from previous assignments in Fruitville. One teacher and the new Garcia assistant principal had worked with Elena earlier in her career, when Elena had been a language resource specialist. All the new staff members sought placement at Garcia after exposure to the vision for the new school. It ai ” I observed all the teachers in Track D at Garcia Elementary, including the long-term substitutes for the kindergarten teacher and the second grade teacher, both of whom were on leave of absence for a portion of the time I observed. I will discuss some interviews and interaction with other teachers in Chapter VI. The teachers whose ” portraits” appear below made up two ” triads” — one of first, third, and fifth grade classrooms, the other of second, fourth, and sixth grade classrooms I did not have as many observations of the second grade teacher in this discussion, as she was on maternity leave during a Significant portion of my observation period. I will, however, refer to some Observations of her and to interviews with her. Kindergarten was a ” stand alone” position, not part of either triad. I will include interviews with the kindergarten substitute, who was later hired permanently, in my next chapter. I have organized my discussion according to triads for several 1- . . . e"530115. Triad students worked as cross-age tutors to assrst one another With 119 homework during the first hour after school, in extended day sessions. Triad teachers planned together on at least some projects. Teachers ”moved up” with their students and worked with them over two years, so planning as a triad enabled them to align curriculum and experiences for students. The triad concept was one of the key facets of the school vision. taf vl mnt One of the most unusual and exciting aspects of Elena’s vision for the new school was an extensive staff development program which caused quite a stir among the Fruitville Teachers Association and district personnel. An examination of what was happening in classrooms requires a closer look at the staff development, as all teachers at Garcia were immersed in learning. The program was so unusual that the district required Elena to get an opinion from the state department of education’s legal advisor before implementing the program. The reason? Teachers who participated would be allowed to move up on the pay scale while Elena paid for their training with categorical funds—the district underwrote the training that enabled them to get salary increases. Elena dedicated a large chunk of the new school's budget to this training. Total costs, based on an estimate of 30 participating teachers, would come to $34,230 in Year 1 (12 units of instruction), $32,580 in Year 2 (12 units of instruction) and $16,290 in Year 3 (6 units of instruction) (1-2, MOU). The first year’s training, which began in the summer of 1991 six weeks before the new school opened, would total 180 hours of instruction for each teacher. The first year’s sessions would fOCIIS on strategies for working with Limited English Proficient students. The second year’s training would be the same number of hours, but concentrated on strategies for teaching hands-on science. Year three would be courses leading to t , . . . . . . he MA for master 5 students and specralized areas of mdiv1dua1 chorce for non- 120 M A students. All teachers were required by Elena to participate in the three years of inservice, to be conducted right on site by California State University professors. Teachers who chose to do so could enroll with reduced tuition in the California State master of arts degree program in curriculum and instruction, much of which would be completed by the end of their inservice training. Elena believed that a significant reason for the failure of Fruitville schools to reclassify irnrnigrant children as fluent in English was the district's lack of sufficient proPerly trained personnel. Among Elena's goals was getting all Garcia staff members certified as Language Development Specialists. Teachers would have received enough inservice to be tested for that credential by the end of Year 1 of the Memorandum of Agreement between Garcia Elementary and California State University. Almost all Garcia teachers succeeded in earning the credential. By the end of its first year of operation, Garcia had more credentialed staff than any other school in Fruitville Unified. All Track D teachers had elected to enroll in the master’s degree program by the time I began observing them. All were also working toward the Language Development Specialist credential that would be available if they passed the test at the end of the first year's staff development. Instruction offered during my early observations focused on techniques for helping language minority students acquire English without losing their primary language. Figure 6 includes the list of staff development topics for the 1991-92 SChool year. A handout from a staff development session I observed appears in Figure 7, complete with my notes from the session. (The complete Memorandum of Agreement between California State University and Garcia 121 E.lettxentary for the first two years of school appears in Appendix C.) As I Observed teachers in Track D, I kept in mind the principles they were learning for W Orking with the language minority students who populated their classes. Sept; OCt: NO‘r: Dec: Feb: Mar: May; Illtie: 122 Figure 6 Language Development Specialist Inservice Program CSU 8: Garcia Elementary School, 1991-92 e ' -W ' ' i f P P t Strategies for developing the ability of LEP/ NEP Students to comprehend and compose in English. (W 9/12, M 9/17, M 9/24) v Criteria for and practice in identifying, adapting, and developing appropriate instructional materials for use with LEP/ NEP students. (W 10/ 3, M 10/ 8, M 10/ 15) lssues relative to culturally and linguistically diverse student needs in a pluralistic society with an emphasis on the implications for curriculum and instruction in multicultural and multilingual classrooms. (W 11/ 14, M 11/ 19, M 11 / 26) f Fundamental principles of linguistics, including but not limited to the basic components of language with an emphasis on the applications of this knowledge to teaching. (W 12/5, M 12/10) Theories of first and second language acquisition and their implications for curricular content and methodological changes. (W 1 / 16, W 1 /22, M 1/ 28) W Instruction in content areas using specially designed English language methodologies appropriate for non-native speakers, including but not limited to sheltered English. (2/13, 2/19, 2/25) An examination and demonstration of current approaches and methods including Total Physical Response, the Natural Approach, Silent Way, Suggestopoedia, and Whole Language. (3/6, 3/11, 3/18) Theoretical foundations and methodological implications of bilingual education and its interrelationships to second language instruction. (4/ 10, 4 / 15, 4 / 22) Purposes, limitations, and administration of language proficiency and achievement tests, including nonverbal and informal assessment techniques. (5/ 8, 5/13, 5/ 20) Wm .:H. An historical review of language minority groups in California and an evaluation of current demographic trends with a special focus on classroom implications. (6 / 3, 6/ 5) 123 Figure 7 Helping Students Learn (Sample Handout at Garcia Inservice, November 1991) 1 ~ provide a warm environment in which help is readily available to the student. —buddy system; —peer teaching; — group work 2- Record lectures, talks, presentations on tape. —students may listen several times if necessary 3 ~ Share class notes. - good ”notetakers" duplicate notes for others; —buddy system 4 - Plan lessons that utilize visuals and "hands on" whenever possible. -much better than words or written words 5- Communicate individually with LEP students as much as time permits. —speak slowly with normal volume and intonation; — use body language and gestures; —speak with child at least once per day; LEP child may use English less than one min. per day. 6- Avoid forcing students to speak. - motivate and encourage; make it ”safe” to speak. Affective filter; if person anxious, won't learn. 7- Validate the student’s primary language as Wand important. —allow use of L1; —Help students understand courtesy to others when using primary language. 8 - Avoid overt correction of grammar. —use modeling (oral); — use written work— keep a balance between corrections and positive comments. 9 ‘ Answer questions but avoid overly detailed explanations. - make answer comprehensible and simple. 1 0' If you lecture—make it comprehensible. —emphasize key words and phrases; intonation, repetition important; write key phrases on overhead or chalkboard as you say them; give concrete examples; use pictures, charts, map out ideas; use gestures; clarify new words and concepts. 1 1 ’ Check frequently for understanding. -ask appropriate comprehension questions; look for ”confused," ”lost” students. 1 2‘ Encourage students to use context when they encounter new words. —help them realize they don’t have to understand every word; allow them to realize they don't have to understand every word; allow them to use bilingual dictionaries. 1 3 - Reinforce key concepts. ' — once is nQLenough. 124 F 1 gm re 7 (cont'd) 1 4 - U tilize primary language tutors if needed. —find out if they are available at your site. 1 5 - U tilize primary language materials. —check for materials appropriate for content area. 1 6 - Be informed on the various cultures represented by your students. — understanding can prevent serious W 1 7- Acknowledge richness of other cultures whenever possible. — customs — traditions — contributions (social science and literature) — medicine — natural SCI ences — native dances, games — p.e. — songs — music — ethnic art / calendars — art - food - home economics— jewelry making 1 8. Prepare students for your lessons (what do they already know) — tap prior knowledge — advance organizers — pre-teaching — setting the stage 1 9- Increase chances for success. —success on first assignments — gradually increase difficulty. 20. Make communication your priority. —simplify the input—slower rate and articulation- use high frequency vocabulary — simplify the syntax—make frequent comprehension checks— go beyond, ”Do you understand?” Lots of letters in name, the person is Lao. Hmong the largest minority group in Laos. Racial epithets cause most of fights on any campus, especially between Lao and Khmer. Khmer—not Sending any from camps to Fruitville anymore. Cambodians most scarred by war. Buddhist monks helped parents raise children and helped parents work through past; many here have pOSt-traumatic stress syndrome. Lao and Khmer both feel no longer good parents. They I“(>I‘Irially hit their children as discipline. Think teachers here are in adversarial relationship with them because of lack of physical punishment. Parents here say let us discipline our children traditionally, and we will no longer have gangs. Adolescence is new concept here. In old C()‘Jl‘fiu'y, all people married by then. Hmong girls traditionally marry after first period. Large gami lies by early age common in tribe. Children here adapt to American style of dress fast. Folks tEel they’ve lost their children when they give up old ways, adapt new language. God, king, eacher, parent—hierarchy in old country. Children taught to respect teachers. 125 ia -—Firs Third and Fifth Grad T achers ' #1' a n R irst rad Carmen R. was a native speaker of Spanish in her late twenties with six years experience in another Fruitville elementary school before her transfer to Garcia. She taught second grade in Track D during my early observations, but later moved to first grade. She had been among the first teachers hired by Elena. ” when Dr. McQueen and I saw her teach, we just looked at each other. We both had a gut feel that she would be perfect” (telephone interview, 3/ 27/96). Carmen had already been designated a mentor teacher in science and technology. In Fruitville Unified, a teacher must complete an application, then be observed by the Mentor Teacher Observation Team in order to be selected a mentor. Before she transferred to Garcia, Carmen had also begun a master’s degree program in curriculum and instruction, with a specialization in science and technology. She completed her master’s and bilingual certification through the professional development plan at Garcia, and since my observations were Completed, has been one of 14 teachers in Fruitville Unified promoted to a new internal consulting position called Bilingual Advisor. I was not surprised to learn of her promotion, because her concern about second language acquisition, her interest in multicultural approaches, and her organizational skills were most eViclent during my observations. Her new district duties mean she is one of few teachers to have left Garcia since the school opened. When I first observed her, on February 2, 1992, her second grade Q1338 made Valentines, after which she read them a story, EmMflngJce $123111. Following that activity, the class had a cultural celebration, just one of tr‘any indicators that Carmen valued the varied cultures of the students in her Class. On this occasion, the school media specialist brought food from her 126 African-American culture and joined the class for the event. Other foods av ail able that day were rice, corn bread, pork rinds (chicarros), egg rolls and ChiCken necks. Some of these foods had been brought in by Carmen, others by parents. The class, clustered around a bulletin board featuring pictures of a Cambodian wedding, enjoyed eating and talking about the foods. They finished 111’1ei1- morning with knee-to-knee reading, with one child reading aloud to a Partner. Carmen definitely did not ascribe to a deficit model for these children. In the fall of 1992, Carmen moved to a first grade room at Garcia. She would stay with this class for two years. Wm Carmen’s students sat at five tables, with the teacher's desk at the back of the room (see map of her classroom and a set of her visitors’ handouts, Appendix D). Her room arrangement indicated that she believed in a student— Cerltered approach with lots of small group activity to assist in language acquisition. Five areas around the room were learning centers incorporating language skills and games; headphones and tape recorder for listening; an area for primary language lessons; a sink and surrounding tables for art exploration and a classroom library, with library skills materials. The bulletin boards of Carmen’s classroom were covered with IDict‘ures and posters, with labels in the major languages of her class, yet another iIndicator that she valued the languages of her students. Contemporary movie Stars (such as Tom Cruise) mingled with pictures of African American, Mexican American and Anglo American children. Flags from many countries completed the Colorful border. The multilingual labels on the items in Carmen’s lassroom—ie. ”televrsron,” ”VCR,” ”hght swrtch,” ’ door” —were obv10usly designed to help her children begin to read in their primary languages and in 127 English. On October 14, 1992 a flip chart displayed the results of a recent brainstorming session: ”like school; like teacher; classroom; read books/ do homework; work at school; draw Cambodian pictures; math; play at school; stay cl‘iliet; no bad words; have friends; lunch; milk; be good at school; no fighting at SC11001." A bulletin board proclaimed: ”This is the Way We Feel Today.” Teacher-made words ”Happy, Sad, Angry, Surprised, Scared” were accompanied by student-made illustrations of those feelings. Seasonal poems about Halloween (”The Goblin" by Rose Fyleman, ”Halloween” by Helen Castle) filled one bulletin board in October, 1992, with a story book called 1111mm by Marchette Chute prOpped in the chalk tray below. Student-created art on a friends theme adorned one bulletin board, complete with dictated captions: e. g. a I'm showing my friend how to play soccer;” I'm helping a friend blow bubbles;” ” I' In helping my friend play football;” ”I’m helping my friend with the covers." Carmen’s 33 first-grade students were assigned to five primary language groups, including two for Hmong, one for Khmer, one English and one Spanish (see Figure 4). There were no Anglo-American children in the class. (Only five students in the Garcia student body were classified Caucasian during my observations.) Carmen had assigned the single student who spoke Punjabi to the English group, but she had arranged for an older student tutor to work with the student during primary language time, thirty minutes each day. During that time, students rotated among the learning centers in the room, speaking in their primary languages, so that each group of students rotated to each of the learning CeIlters at least once per week. Mr. Mihn, a Khmer-speaking primary language tut0r who was a college student from California State, worked with the CatIlbodian students in Carmen’s classroom for some portion of each day. a roo Mana ment Carmen was always organized and prepared. She ran a well- OI‘Clered classroom and focused on Assertive Discipline and external rewards, aw arding points to tables who were on task and recording those points on a I’lltining record on the chalkboard. When table groups received enough points, tl‘ley could fish for rewards in the prize box. Carmen often made such remarks aS, "Table One is reading nicely. They get a point.” Children’s names were taped to their assigned seats at their tables. I)Osters on the wall listed the names of children by primary language groups. High over the teacher’s desk were posters of classroom rules. One read: ”1. FOIIow directions. 2. Keep your hands, feet and objects to yourself. 3. N o teasing or name calling. 4. Be at school on time.” A second poster listed " Consequences” in Assertive Discipline fashion, with name recorded on board first, then check marks and increasing severity of consequences, including ”6. Call parents, send to principal.” and ”7. Send to principal.” A third poster listed individual and group rewards, as follows: ”Individual Rewards: 1. Verbal praise; 2. Notes home; 3. Teacher’s helper; 4. Prizes; 5. Special call home.” Group Rewards listed include: ”1. Verbal Praise; 2. Free time; 3. Special project; 4- Movie.” All the students in the room were wearing uniforms, as was CaI‘n-ien, on each of my observations. Wm October 14, 1992 was a typical day for primary language groups in CarIr‘ten’s class. The English group of seven students was working a puzzle While the Khmer group read books in English, but spoke in Khmer with their primary language tutor. Bookcases marked ”English Books” were filled with 129 many story books from which children were choosing. A box nearby covered With red and white checked paper held books labeled ”Spanish Literature Units.” TWO small girls lay on their stomachs on the floor, sharing mm m. One Hmong group was using the headphones at the primary language Center with the fifth grade cross-age tutor from their Triad, Youa Xiong. The Other Hmong group worked with phonics cards in the corner. The Spanish group was busily making pumpkin pictures in the art center. Carmen moved easily between the English and Spanish groups, speaking to children respectfully in their primary languages. She used an enthusiastic tone. First grade teachers at a multilingual school need to be well—versed in strategies for working with students who may not understand English, the donunant language of the classroom, and who may not understand one another. Like other teachers at Garcia School, Carmen dealt with this challenge by participating eagerly in inservice training taught at the school building by California State professors and by using what she learned. Because she was f1Llent in Spanish and was learning the Southeast Asian languages of the school community, she could use code-switching when it seemed appropriate to help her students. Carmen's practice particularly favored the Diglot—Weave method of comprehensible input, a technique for using words in context in one language While carrying on the rest of the dialogue in another. She was so conscious of the lat‘lguage acquisition strategies she employed that she maintained a set of handouts about them for visitors to her class. On October 14, Carmen’s visitor- ready handout (Appendix D) included two pages from an unidentified source exPlaining the Diglot-Weave method and crediting Robins Burling, a University of Michigan anthropologist, with its promotion. The handout cited three of his pllblications—1966, 1978 and 1983. Attached as well was another page deSCribing her lesson. On January 12, 1992, Carmen’s handout detailed for 130 visitors the objective, set, materials, guided practice, closure and independent practice on a lesson on distinguishing between human needs and wants. On that day, she wrote, she would use the Diglot-Weave Input Comprehension-Based Approach. The first page of her handout explained that comprehension-based theories establish receptive skills first (listening comprehension in particular, but to some extent also reading comprehension) and do not attempt specifically to train oral production — oral fluency being expected to emerge naturally and gradually out of the data base established through ample comprehension experience of the right kind (1 of Carmen's handout, 1993; see Appendix D). Other strategies detailed in her handout included Optimal Habit Reinforcement and ””The Learnables,”’ which she credited to H. Winitz. She explained that this was a ”self-instructional program consisting of audiocassettes with accompanying picture books, which follows the principles of Comprehension-Based Learning” (3, handout). Another strategy she explained in her handout was The Natural Approach -which consisted, simply stated, of i mmersion: ”a high amount of input made comprehensible through pictures, a Qtions and situational, grammatical and lexical transparency” (3, handout). A founh strategy Carmen explained in print was Delayed Oral Response, which She credited to V. A. Postovsky. This technique concerned ”problem-solving tEiSks with multiple-choice responses—essentially the same as ’identify the boxes’ bu t automated for self-instruction” (2, handout). Early in Carmen’s first grade year she frequently used Total IZ’I‘IySical Response (TPR), a system of slow speech coupled with gestures that " aet out” the gist of what is spoken; her handout credited James]. Asher for this teCl‘mique. Her handout explained: ” Children respond meaningfufly to a 131 particular type of input—namely, directives in context-clear situations that invite an action response rather than a verbal response” (handout, 1). On October 14, 1992, I observed her class proceeding with a TPR exercise. Here is an excerpt from the audiotape of that lesson: Carmen: Are you ready to do it again? Students (in chorus): Yes. Carmen: (seated facing away from her class) Okay, I’m going to sit this way like you’re sitting, so that way, you can look at me, because if I turn around it might confuse you. Everybody sitting down please. Sitting down, please. Okay, are you ready? Students: Yes. Carmen: This is my left hand. Let me say it first, and then you repeat it. This is my left hand. No, let me. You're saying it with me. You can’t say it with me. Let me say it first, okay? You repeat it, okay? Let me go first. This is my left l“land. SifIidents: This is my left hand. Carmen; (lifting hand) 1'11 hold it up high. Students: (lifting hands) 1'11 hold it up high. Qarmen: This is my right hand. Smdents: This is my right hand. Qairmen: (lifting hand) I'll touch the sky. St1.1dents: (lifting hands) I’ll touch the sky. Qarmen: Left hand. Students: Left hand. Qairmen: Right hand. Students: Right hand. 132 Carmen: (rolling hands) Roll them around. Students: (rolling hands) Roll them around. Carmen: (bringing hand down) Right hand. Students: (bringing hands down) Right hand. Carmen: (bringing hand down) Left hand. Students: (bringing hand down) Left hand. Carmen: (pounding both hands on table) Pound, pound, pound. Students: (pounding both hands on table) Pound, pound, pound. Carmen: There you go. Was that easier for you? Students: Yes. Carmen: Yes, that must have been easier for you. Thank you. You did a better 1 Ob on that. Okay, it’s time to go...9:15, and you have to go to your centers. (Student conversation as they move.) Cairmen: Okay, boys and girls. It’s time to go to your centers. Where does the Phrple group—uh, no, just a minute. I’m still talking. I like the way is Sltting down. He’s ready. He’s listening. And Josephine and . Where does the purple group go? (Student conversation.) Qairmen. Look at the purple group. Number One, where do you go today? (Student responses) Q"Eli'men: How ’bout Number Two, the green group? Shadent: Two. Qarmen: Center two. How about the orange group, English? Student: Three. Qarmen: Very good. How about the blue group, science? 133 Stu dent: Four. Ca rrnen: Group red, where do you go today? St u dent: Five. Carmen: Please. We're not ready yet. Sit down, please. Thank you. Over at Center One, what do you do at Center One? / / (pause) Does anybody know What to do at Center One? Stu dents: (conversation) St11dent: Do phonics cards. Q'c‘rlrrnen: Do phonics cards. There you go. The big cards first, then when you get a chance to do all of the cards, then you're able to do the little phonics cards. 0w please take very good care of those cards because they’re yours. Are they IT‘lirte? Students: (in chorus) No! Carmen: No, they're yours, for the year. Now, you don’t want no one to tear your cards, so remember, take care of your cards. Listen carefully, please. Center One, go to your group. Only Center One. I like the way Center One is going to their group. Look how nicely they’re going to their group. Okay, how bout Center Two? Go to your group, please. Carmen: Center Three, go to your group. Center Four....And Center Five. (Later, after center time) Carmen: You need to clean up. (Student conversation) Qarmen: Look what a wonderful job this group did over here in the library. Look at the wonderful job. (Student moving noise and conversation.) Qarmen: I like the way Table One is ready....Table One is ready. Table One gets EpointmTable Three gets a point. Table Four. / / Table Five is almost ready. ow they’re ready. Table Two is ready./ / Boys and girls, take a look at these Wonderful pictures that the group did over at the art station number Three, Four. 134 L0 ok at ’5 picture— look at that. Aren't these nice? Did they use crayon or pencil? Student: No. Carmen: No. What did they use? (M Llltiple student responses) Carmen: They cut. All they did is use the what? S‘tlldent: Scissors. Cairmen: Scissors, and they used the... Student: (unintelligible response) Cal'men: Glue, paper, that’s it. / / Okay, it’s time for recess, and so we better— \, could I talk to the class? Carmen: No? I can’t talk to my class? (Student responses and shuffling) Carmen: Uh oh. We’re not ready. Table One is ready. They may go on out. ey may go on out. / / And remember, right after recess, we get to go to the library. / / Table Three is ready. / / Table Two is ready. / / Table Five is ready. ey may come out. / / And Table Four is ready. _, I like the way you’re Walking. On April 14, 1993, students in Carmen’s class were working in groups on their handwriting, practicing sentences from their reading, when I arrived. Carmen circulated among the tables, giving occasional instructions and praise and answering questions from students. An older Anglo-American man was checking students’ math homework at the teacher’s desk. The Cambodian Primary language tutor worked with five students who sat clustered in one area. Again I saw Carmen using code-switching, giving directions in English, but S'IDeaking occasionally in Spanish to a student she passed. ”A tu trabajo...,” she bEgan a suggestion. On the chalk tray sat a variety of books that celebrated the 135 cu l tures of the class: The Legend of Mu Lan: A Heroine of Ancient China; 1 ti th NewY ar is Youn h au'EQlk Stories of the Hmongm W (an African-American story); La Causa; and 15131 (Native American). On the chalk board were the titles of nursery rhymes: ”This Old M an,” ” Little Teapot,” ”One, Two, Buckle My Shoe,” ”Yankee Doodle,” ”Three Little Kittens," ”Hickory, Dickory Dock.” A Venn diagram labeled ”Our Tree” W as also written on the chalk board, with a count— ”6 out of 29 trees are r«Ifledium; 18 out of 29 trees are small; 5 out of 29 trees are big”. In the primary 1al‘Iguage groups that followed, Carmen worked with five students on the COricepts of ”equals,” ” greater than” and ”less than,” with all her instruction in Spanish. Other students worked diligently in their groups with their primary language aides. That day I remember noting how carefully Carmen honored the languages and cultures of her students, and how consciously she crafted lessons tl‘lat assisted them in learning English while supporting their primary languages. Carmen’s demeanor on the videotape of her class on June 15, 1993 Was, as usual, calm and serious, with a firm, enthusiastically businesslike manner in her address to the class. She walked around the classroom while students Worked on writing, giving occasional directions, for example: <$armen: Don’t forget to space your words. Don’t squish them together. You Qn’t wanna squish your words together. Put your finger, if you need to put your finger, in between the words. Go ahead and do that. / / Okay, boys and girls, put your journals away inside your desks, please. / / Table Four looks like ey’re almost ready. (Time passes) Qarmen: Keep working ’til it’s all finished. / / I’ll check it in a minute. , your table is waiting for you. Table Three is ready. Okay, boys and girls, we're going to do something just a little bit different today, okay? Remember, we're used to things being different, right? And we're patient. So please, just listen to Mr. Mihn and he'll tell you what to do. 136 Mr - Mihn, the Cambodian primary language tutor, told students a story in En glish, then read it to them in Khmer. Such activities helped the students in the cla ssroom to value one another’s cultures and to learn a few words of languages unlike their own or the common language all were learning, English. On January 20, 1993, I observed the end of Carmen's afternoon Class. Students were completing homework, for which she had given inStructions in primary languages. A primary language tutor was assisting CEarrnen. When her class ended at 2:30, I accompanied Carmen to a portable building behind the school, where she would conduct her extended day session, a Spanish class for fourth, fifth and sixth graders. She conducted this class every Wednesday afternoon for an hour after the regular school day ended. AS children entered the room, Carmen wrote on the chalkboard: ”Querido...., il‘lola! gComo estas? gSabes que paso....? Un arbol se....arriba de un....Venieron 1()s....y....El...tumbo....y ..... La....van a tener que ..... Cuesta mucho....Esto paso a ..... Que lastirna que ..... Que bueno que un hurrican no ..... Adios, ..... ” Carmen called tl'lis technique ”a journal with help.” Students, who knew the routine, wrote in j Oumals to ”fill in the blanks” with their own creations. Carmen told me later that she starts her Spanish class in this way each week. All the students in this Q1 ass spoke some Spanish, she said, but not much. This class was designed to be Spanish as a foreign language. At this point in the year, students read and write a little bit. While they were in class, Carmen required that they speak only Spanish. On June 15, 1993, I visited with students in Carmen’s first grade Spanish primary language group after she completed a math lesson on counting trloney, which she had conducted in Spanish. The students told me they liked 1earming things in Spanish. Other topics they said they had studied in Spanish Were ” trees, houses, and neighbors." They said that they did not understand 137 In uch when Mr. Mihn read a Cambodian story to the whole class in Khmer, but that they were learning some words in Khmer. They also said they knew a few Words in Hmong and Lao. Lntgrview with Carmen I spoke with Carmen (10 / 14 / 92) on the playground during recess about the school’s uniforms, primary language groups and her feelings about IIic>ving up with her class. The uniforms had been opitional in the opening year 0 f school, but Elena had made them mandatory in the second year. Carmen said that if students could not afford the uniforms, Elena was ”lending a uniform that t1"ley are to return or pay for when they can afford to pay for it. (Lack of money to buy uniforms) hasn’t really been much of a problem.” Carmen added that the S’tudents liked wearing the uniforms, and the teachers did, too, as the uniforms made decisions about what to wear to school much easier. Carmen had been irlterviewed recently by a reporter from the San Francisco Bay area who had Called the school about the uniforms. Her brother, who works in Fairbanks, Alaska, had seen the article in his local paper, carried on the wire service. Carmen was proud that Garcia School’s fame was spreading. She told me that a Hmong man, father of children at Garcia School, had established a business tailoring uniforms for the students. Garcia had been the first Fruitville public SQhOOl to require uniforms. But Carmen said that the idea of uniforms was Qiatching on in Fruitville Unified, even in the more affluent northern part of town. Carmen told me that her class worked every day in primary language groups for 30 minutes in the early part of the morning, and again if she had time, because she wanted to support students’ primary languages while they learned English. Her practice was to have the Khmer speakers work with Mr. Mihn whenever he was available. But Carmen found that the fifth grade 138 stu dents from her triad made effective primary language aides as well, and that they loved to do the work. A fifth grade student I had observed that morning W as coming in every day even though she was ”off track” and could have been enj oying a vacation from school. Carmen told me that she was looking forward to moving up with her class when they were promoted. ”The other teachers that 1' Ve spoken to that have taken up their groups, they love it. They really love it. SO I believe that I'll love it, too.” W How had the staff decision to call students ”Linguistically Gifted IJersons” affected Carmen’s teaching and classroom demeanor? Did she appear to believe that her students were deficient, or proficient in one language while learning another? My observations indicated that she believed her students already possessed the gift of fluency in one language while they were learning English and the languages of their peers. Were these new beliefs that Carmen acquired after the staff decided to adopt the positive label for Garcia students? I tllink not. I suspect that Carmen , bilingual herself, became more intentional and Overt in employing theories she already espoused before the staff’s decision to a dopt a nondeficit model. Many features of Carmen’s lessons, from bulletin boards to choice of books for display to her own speaking of Spanish and English to her frequent use of primary language groupings, showed that she valued her SfPudents’ primary languages and cultures as much as she did their success in El'iglish. She treated students with respect while consciously employing 1:echniques to increase their comprehensible input. Carmen’s lessons showed not only that she understood Total Physical Response and the other language acquisition strategies she explained in 139 her handout, but that she also valued order and conformity. Based on her familiarity with second language acquisition theories, I suspect that she created order and conformity to enhance students’ learning, since a familiar and predictable routine enhances comprehension. Carmen ascribed fully to the idea of ” directives in context-clear situations” that she discussed in her handout; she was clearly accustomed to and comfortable with the power role in her classroom. Her students also appeared comfortable with classroom routines. Because her class included many children with low proficiency in English who did not share a primary language, it is not surprising that Carmen’s English questions were generally of a known-answer variety in a typical Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) pattern. Under the circumstances, Carmen’s IRE pattern was an appropriate instructional choice. Given the makeup of her class and the students’ age and experience with English, it is also not surprising that they rarely initiated conversation or questions directed to their teacher during whole-class work; indeed, most conversation was initiated by Carmen even as students worked in groups. For more advanced students, or for students more fluent in both the target and primary languages, this situation might have hindered language growth. But I believe that Carmen created this atmosphere consciously, based on her inservice training, for a class of first graders immersed in a new language. Carmen had learned from Fruitville State professors that children are often silent as they become accustomed to a new language. She knew, too, that children learning a new language needed comprehensible input in that language. Carmen spoke and moved rather slowly in her classroom, following the Sheltered English theories in her inservice training; articulating more slowly than normal enhances students’ comprehension. Carmen’s repeated words and phrases and clearly established routines certainly followed the teachings of the inservice training, and no doubt did add to her students’ comprehensible input 140 0f the second language they were mastering. Carmen used the same immersion techniques and sheltering of Spanish when she worked with the older students in her extended day class in Spanish. Readers may question the value of some of Carmen's other techniques. Assertive Discipline, for example, depends on external rewards and / or punishments. It may not be an effective tool for increasing students’ sense of self-discipline and responsibility for learning. I noticed, however, that all Garcia teachers used Assertive Discipline to greater or lesser degree. Another quite traditional technique I saw Carmen using was handwriting practice. Writing process approaches put much less emphasis on the forming of letters and copying from books and more on having children compose their own texts. It is important to note, however, that Carmen’s first and second graders were immersed in English while she made conscious choices to support and value their primary languages. Carmen’s classroom displays, choice of trade books for her classroom library, teaching materials and activities and careful use of primary language groups all demonstrated that she valued the array of cultures represented by the students in her class. This was perhaps the most important of the features of the Garcia Plan for treating students in a non-deficit manner. Despite behavior that fostered teacher-centeredness instead of student-centeredness, did Carmen espouse all the tenets of the Garcia Plan? Outward signs indicated that she did, though she was a teacher in transition from teacher-centered to student-centered approaches. As a bilingual person, Carmen might be expected to value her students’ primary languages and consider them ”linguistically gifted.” But fluency in several languages, is, by itself, too facile an explanation for Carmen’s commitment. She could have just as easily encouraged second language learning at the expense of the primary 141 language, as many immigrants do. John Ogbu’s work confirms that immigrant people especially strive to master a new language, as it represents the ability to succeed in the new culture; parents sometimes embrace the new language and culture so enthusiastically that they encourage their children’s loss of primary language and culture. By contrast, Carmen’s passion for the Garcia Plan demonstrated that she wanted to nurture her children’s primary languages and cultures while she helped them master English. So was the teacher-centered focus in Carmen's room appropriate? Did she really buy into the phiIOSOphy of student-centeredness? While these ideas appear inconsistent, I believe the answer to both questions is ”yes.” Carmen’s room was arranged in student-centered fashion, and some of students' work occurred in centers each day, with primary language tutors and older, cross-age tutors from her triad assisting. Although her overall style was teacher- centered, Carmen consciously varied activities. Students in her classes had much opportunity to talk with one another and with the primary language aides, even though they seemed to initiate little ”small talk” with Carmen. Before she arrived at Garcia, Carmen had been working with hands-on techniques. Adopting new ones and becoming more intentional about language instruction appeared to be easy for Carmen. While her questioning and classroom management styles were obviously more teacher-centered than student-centered, I believe that she crafted the atmosphere of her classroom to meet the real input needs of young learners with low English proficiency. Carmen’s techniques, therefore, could be deemed a "hybrid" of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches. Her frequent praise of students for what I will call ”school demeanor" was, I believe, a technique for indoctrinating her students in the culture of the American school. In a very real sense, Carmen was building a common classroom culture for her children. I saw echoes of Cazden in her 142 Style, as she clearly believed her students to be capable learners, certainly not deficient. Carmen invested herself in the Garcia Plan. She demonstrated these beliefs in her conversation outside the classroom, in her respectful classroom behavior and in her own wearing of uniform colors, but especially in her careful use of techniques that supported students' primary languages while assisting them in mastering English. During the period of my observations, Carmen appeared to be an enthusiastic and effective teacher in transition, completely sold on the school’s vision and actively supporting it. E E'IEEZ‘I 511.1;1 Juana, a teacher in her early to mid-forties, had much experience in the Fruitville Unified Schools before she transferred to Garcia Elementary. But for most of her career she had been a paraprofessional. Elena had worked with her in that capacity in one of Elena's early assignments in Fruitville. She had thought Juana excellent in that role. Elena was further impressed when Juana put herself through college and earned a teaching credential. Juana had had five years experience as a teacher in another Fruitville elementary school when she joined the Garcia staff. I E .1] .11. On October 13, 1992, I sat in on Juana's pre-evaluation conference with Elena (see Appendix H for Garcia Principal-Teacher Conference Form). The women discussed Juana’s two-year plans. Juana proposed a webbing of thematic instruction on several topics, for which she had prepared diagrams. One idea surrounded the reading of W. Asian children born in Fruitville live in the apartments, she said, and have no knowledge of farm animals or pets. She would need to teach those concepts, as well as work on writing in general 143 through the medium of the story, which she planned to use to teach the concepts 0f title, setting and plot. She would use her author's chair to encourage children to share what they wrote. In science, she planned to teach spider facts. In math, she would teach graphs using information about spiders. When she had talked with her class recently about spiders, they thought that spiders flew, so she knew they had a ways to go in their understanding. Next year, in September, October and November, she planned to study Native Americans. Elena addressed the school site plan with Juana, and encouraged her to read the plan for curriculum insight as she worked on her webbing of ideas. She asked that Juana concentrate on language development, an objective for all teachers and all students at Garcia. She reminded Juana that the school’s goal was to raise the students’ level of language proficiency two levels higher than the district’s goal. WW Juana’s classroom had a friendly, relaxed atmosphere. Juana smiled frequently, and children seemed to feel free to talk to one another and to her. On every observation occasion, I saw conversation and movement in her classroom. Sometimes children worked on a whole-class exercise, as in the case of the math game description that follows. Sometimes Juana read to them and they clustered around her. On other occasions they were practicing their singing or working on art or social studies projects. Regardless of the lesson, Juana moved around the room, as did the children. I never observed a whole-class lesson where children sat silently in straight rows. Desks in Juana’s classroom were arranged in clusters to form tables, with groups of four children facing one another. Juana’s desk sat at the side of the room. The room arrangement and lessons I observed showed that Juana bought into the notion of experiential 144 learning that was part of the Garcia Plan. Above the chalk board in her classroom hung a poster listing, in Iuana’s handwriting, ”Problem-Solver Strategies:" ”1) Look for a pattern; 2) Construct a table; 3) Make an organized list; 4) Act it out; 5) Draw a picture; 6) Use objects; 7) Guess and check; 8) Work backwards...” As the class worked on a math game, two small children, first graders from the triad, appeared in the back of the room and sat by the primary language tutor, a student from California State University. The younger students were on ”time out” from their own class because they gotten into trouble there. Juana welcomed them briefly, then returned to her task. A poster of ”Group Rules” was attached high on one wall: ”1) You are responsible for your own work and behavior;” ”2) You must be willing to help any group member who asks;” ”3) You may ask for help only when everyone in your group has the same question.” When Juana made classroom management remarks, she did so with humor. The only time I saw her exasperated came at the end of the long math exercise, when Juana showed students that she could lose patience: Juana: I think I’m just gonna pick up the plates of those that aren’t able to handle it and I’ll share with those of you who can. So some of you may have two of them. Because you know how to take care of them. , can you share that with me? That information? / / The moment passed, and in seconds, she was back into the exercise. W In October of 1992 I observed Juana working with her class of 30 third graders, none of whom was Anglo-American. The students were playing a math game in which each child had a paper plate in one of three colors with a single digit written on it. They were moving about the room to form groups of 145 three digits in response to Juana's instructions to ”make the biggest number you can” and the ”smallest number you can”. The atmosphere was relaxed and collaborative, with much student conversation of a productive, on-task sort. Juana smiled often and spoke naturally with students, who were busily engaged in the task. She seemed comfortable with the noise level and some degree of confusion when students made incorrect combinations of digits. When the class got too noisy, Juana asked for ”total body listening.” Excerpts from my audiotape of the math game follow: Juana: Okay, wait a minute. Let's back up here. Who can read this number? (Student responses) Juana: Eight hundred and seventy-four. Good. We got that . Okay, . Well they are, but you're not. Eight hundred and seventy four, right? Right. Good. Lea, how much are you worth? Student: Four hundred. Juana: Four hundred? Are you in the hundreds place? No, who’s in the hundreds place? ? Who’s in the tens place? Who’s in the ones place? How much are you worth, Lea? Student: (Unintelligible answer) Juana: Four, you’re worth four. How much are you worth, _? Student: (Unintelligible answer) Juana: How much? Student: Seventy. Juana. She's worth seventy. Or, can somebody tell me another way of saying seventy? ’Cause she’s in the tens place. She’s worth what? Seven.... Student: Seven! Juana. Seven. Seven tens. Sandy, is that the same thing? 146 Student: Yes. Juana: Right. Same thing. Together they make how much? Student: Seventy-four! Juana: Seventy-four. Right. This isn’t all our number. We also have an eight. How much are you worth, Robert? Student: Eight hundred? Juana: Eight hundred. Eight hundred he’s worth. Or we could say he’s worth what? (Student chorus of responses.) Juana: Eight what? Juana: Eight tens? (Student responses) Juana: The hun...he’s in the hundreds place, so he's worth eight hundreds. Right? Plus, how much is worth? Plus...Plus, how much? Four. Which makes how much if I added it all up? Student: Eight hundred...seventy, eight...eight hundred seventy four! Juana: That’s right! Eight hundred seventy is eight hundred and seventy, plus four is eight hundred seventy... Student: Four! Juana: Make the smallest number you can, guys. / / You've made the smallest number? Student. No. / / Yes, yes, yes. Juana: How do you know? (Student clamor of voices.) Juana: I need you to raise hands so I can hear you, ’cause I know I'm getting people who are giving me some really good answers. How do you know that that’s the smallest number you can make? / / Uh...Ryan? 147 Stu dent: ’Cause the four is in the front? Juana: Why do you want the four in the front? Student: ’Cause the four is the smallest. Juana: The four is the smallest digit, isn't it? And what position is it in? (Student responses) I uana: It’s in the hundreds spot, isn’t it? So that’s the smallest hundred. What about the other numbers, digits? (Student responses) Iuana: Um, let me ask you one question. Is this a paper plate? Students: Yes. Inana: Is it for eating? Students: N o. Juana: No. Is it for fly-slapping? Students. No. Juana: No. What are we doing with it? (Student responses.) Juana: We’re learning. What are we learning? (Student responses) Juana: Could you treat it like this, please? Like it’s learning material? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Roger. That’s good. Thank you. Okay, real quick, We’re gonna start adding with this, so watch. Um, Robert, how much are you worth? Student: Eighty. Juana: You’re worth eighty? Student: Eight! Eight! Eight! 148 Juana: How many of you think he’s worth eighty? How many of you think he’s worth eight? Who can tell me why he’s worth eight? Roger, why are you worth eight? Student: I’m in the ones. Juana: You’re in the ones, aren’t you? Very good. Um, how much is Laura worth now? (Student responses.) Juana: Laura, you're still worth seventy? Oh, didn’t go up or down, huh? Lea, how much is she worth now? Student: Four hundred. Juana: Now he’s worth four hundred. Why? Student: Because he’s in the hundreds place. Juana: Okay. Now, look at your plates, because I want that number, four hundred and seventy-eight. I want you to add a one to it. Who would have to go up to make four hundred and seventy eight plus one? (Student responses) Juana: So who would have to change then? (Student responses) Juana: First of all, what color would he have to be? (Student responses) Juana: It’d have to be red, huh? And it has to be what digit? (Student responses and movement) Juana: Now, do I have four hundred and seventy nine? Student: Yes. Juana: You know what I see? I see four thousand , four hundred and seventy eight. / / Ooooh, now I see one thousand, four hundred and seventy-eight. 149 (Student movement) Juana: How can we make that number say four hundred seventy.... (Student responses) Juana: Let me ask you something. If you have four digits, is it ever a hundred? No, if I've got four digits up there, I’ve got thousands. And if we, if we added one to four hundred and seventy-eight, would we get thousands? We had four hundred and seventy-eight, right? And I wanted you to add one more. What number should we have? (Student response) Juana: Equals how much? (Student responses) Juana: Okay, let me ask you this. Do you have four hundred and seventy-nine? / /Do I have four hundred? Juana: Okay, remember, if you’ve got four people up here, I’ve got how many digits? / / So can I have four people up here? No, you have to make this with three people. (Student movement) Juana: I think she’s figured it out. Does anybody else think they’ve figured it out how we can make four hundred and seventy-nine? , do you think you know how? (Student response) Juana: Okay, wait-wait-wait-wait-wait. Terrific. Listen up. This is what he thinks is the solution. Go ahead and say it. Student: They need a four in the front and, and a nine, a seven in the middle and a nine in the back. Juana: And do we need either one of these two? Student: No. Juana: A nine is what color? Student: Red. 150 Juana: Red. What number do I have now? (Student response) Juana: Okay, thank you very much. Juana: , take care of it for me. Okay. , how much are you worth? Two hundred. Or? / / Two hundreds, right? with how much....? Juana’s lesson, though much more abstract than Carmen's group choral repetition with gestures, was a way of teaching mathematics through Total Physical Response. Juana was also consciously using techniques to foster second language learning. 4'..." : u' 1:14.". io' 1-0.: 0. 3.1:; 119;! On January 20, 1993, I observed Juana's class discussing the inauguration speech of President Clinton, which they had just viewed on television. Students were excitedly answering the 5 W’s questions, and Juana was taking notes on the chalk board. ”Who is the new president?” she asked. ”What is the man’s name?” ”When was the inauguration?” On the chalk board, earlier that morning, she had written, ”Dear Students: You are cordially invited to view the inauguration of President Clinton in the media center. It will start at 9:00 a.m. Sincerely, Mrs. S.” Beside the invitation was a brainstormed list of ideas the students had used to predict what the new president would talk about: ”recycle, helping people in catastrophes, education, war, drugs, children, crime, fighting, child abuse, murder, drunk drivers, gangs, graffiti, extra-curriculum, gun control, homeless, jobless, robbery.” Two other words, circled, were ideas President Clinton had mentioned that the students had not predicted: ”debt” and ”Somalia”. 151 ”What did you see?” asked Juana, as the class settled in. Many children’s hands flew up. ”Who did you see?” More hands. Juana called on one child, who answered, ”Al Gore, the vice principal.” Juana chuckled kindly as she responded, ”Yes, the vice president.” She quietly corrected the language error the child made while praising the correctness of his answer. Juana realized that the child had comprehended her question and had the gist of the answer, even though his English vocabulary was not quite up to the task. On January 26, 1993, I arrived at Juana’s class at 8:20 a.m. She introduced me to her new student teacher, who would also be observing, and who wanted to work at grades 3, 4 and 5. Juana told the class they would be having 15 minutes of language work all week after recess. In that period, they would all learn about animals in Spanish or Hmong. As students cleared their desks for reading period, Juana said, ”Someone important died yesterday. His name was Thurgood Marshall, the first black American to be a Supreme Court Justice.” She handed each child a sheet of information about Thurgood Marshall and asked for a volunteer to read the first sentence. ”Veronica is so smart," she said, as Veronica finished reading. The reading said that Thurgood Marshall had ended segregation for blacks and whites in schools. Juana asked the class if they knew what segregation meant. A lively discussion ensued. At 8:55, a second grader from another room entered the room and took a seat. Later, Juana explained that the child was so bright she came to Juana’s room for reading, as second grade work was not sufficiently challenging. Children worked together on the worksheet about Thurgood Marshall. Occasionally, a child would rise and go toanother, and they would speak in their primary language about the worksheet. The word ”accomplish” on the worksheet was difficult for the class to figure out. Two small Hmong boys in the front of the room worked together briefly, then Tao went back to his seat across 152 the room. The last activity on the worksheet asked children to draw Thurgood Marshall in a long black robe. ”Robe” was not a word familiar to these students. Juana, who was circulating among the tables, asked the class if anyone knew the meaning. One Hmong boy responded ”It’s not a suit,” as a girl nearby had drawn. Juana asked the boy to work with the girl to show her a robe. Juana explained ”When you graduate from college, you wear a robe, when you sit on the Supreme Court, you have to wear a robe.” Juana’s lesson, though quite abstract, was more comprehensible to students because Juana encouraged them to work together to understand it. Her manner with the class communicated cheerfully that she knew they could figure out the hard words. Juana’s behavior indicated that she believed her students to be bright and capable second- language-learners — indeed, Linguistically Gifted Persons. On April 13, 1993, I visited Juana’s classroom at 1:43 p.m., as she was beginning a discussion of social studies, asking children questions in a classic Initiation-Response-Evaluation pattern. Her room was filled with birds and pictures of birds. A pair of live cockatiels and a pair of doves scratched in cages on a side table. Other cages held four stuffed birds. Discussion turned to a field trip to a Pioneer Village the class was to take that Thursday. The following week, they would take a field trip to the 200. On the bulletin board was a poster with a brainstormed list of bird ideas, labeled ”Our Knowledge About Birds.” Beside it was a ”Heal the World” poster with children from many cultures pictured. After class, Juana told me that the triad would be showing Michael Jackson’s ”Heal the World” video to first, third and fifth graders. Half her class, then numbering 32, spoke languages other than English at home, and she was sensitive to their feelings about including all peoples in any celebration. On Earth Day, the triad teachers planned to tape the children singing ”Heal the World” in front of the school, a performance that they wanted to get on the 153 Garcia Morning News television show for other classes to see. This week the students in the triad were all practicing the song. Carmen called Juana on the in-class telephone system and asked if she could send a few students to demonstrate the song for Carmen’s first graders. Juana drew names from a plastic tub to choose students to go visit the first grade classroom. I went with the singers. When they finished, I told the Juana’s students they had done a good job, and received a spontaneous hug from Doris, an African-American third grader. I told Juana about that hug later in the afternoon. She said the students were touched by the song and understood the idea that Michael Jackson loved children. Latina herself, she had always valued a variety of cultures. She told me, though, that she would have liked to continue another year of theory and practice in multicultural teaching with the California State faculty who came to do inservice for Garcia teachers. She said that the ”Heal the World” unit brought home that the teachers could have used more time to practice what they had learned in their first year of inservice before moving on to the topic on hands-on science, as they had done. On June 16, 1993, I videotaped Juana’s class just after lunch. As the children assembled, she told me that they had been reading stories from all cultures, a theme that she planned to continue with food, especially those foods that crossed cultures, like rice. The students would also be learning dances from all cultures, and she would be inviting into her classroom ”heroes” from the community, representing all cultures. That day students were writing their versions of English stories and folk tales, which they were illustrating with life- sized stuffed characters made from paper. A large rooster, a life-sized deer, a figure of Jack (from ”Jack and the Beanstalk”) and a huge stuffed tree lined the walls of the room, which also sported a poster listing classroom jobs: ”Table monitors, line leaders, librarians, TV / phone, gofers, hall monitors, janitors, 154 greeter of visitors.” On one bulletin board was a patchwork of bird art labeled ”Bird Quilt.” A cursive alphabet featuring children from many cultures encircled the soffit of the room. Suspended just below it were many examples of student art work, all different. A cardboard castle, large enough for a child to cross the drawbridge, hulked in one corner. A teacher-made diagonal poster labeled ”Fairy Tales” and dotted with small cutout characters crossed a bulletin board. The room had a warm and inviting disarray that indicated student activity. At 1:00 p.m., Juana read to the students from a big book the story of ”The Hare and the Tortoise." Children read along in chorus. Students with the lowest English language proficiencies did not read, but they listened attentively. Juana communicated that she knew they were participating. At 1:06, Juana sent the children to work in groups on their stuffed illustrations. The videotape of this activity shows a room bursting with productive children who move freely, working together on the floor and on the tables, armed with markers, scissors and staplers as they wrestle with illustrations as large or larger than they are. Juana circulates easily among the groups, chatting with children, offering encouragement and helping them problem-solve. As I also moved about the room, one group of three Hmong boys was eager to tell me about their story, which they were illustrating with a rooster. Another group of three boys demonstrated attitudes that cut across cultures. When I asked why they had chosen the story they had, one boy answered with a grin, ”It was short.” His companion added, ”That’s his reason. I like the story.” Another group of Southeast Asian children told me their story was ”cool.” A group working on Peter Pan said they had made their choice because they liked the ”team” of lost boys. That group was making a crocodile, which 155 one of them had seen, live, in a zoo in another city. While I wandered from group to group listening to the children’s interaction, a Hmong boy asked me how to spell what I understood to be ”stayed.” When I helped him sound that out, he corrected me. The word he wanted was ”state.” All the third graders were fully engaged in the activity and seemed to be having fun. ' w — ’ ' ' i o h As Juana talked with me about the upcoming Earth Day celebration, she shared with me her philosophy of including all students in every experience, even though some, at the lowest English proficiency, would not know or understand the words to the ”Heal the World” song. The singing, and especially the rhyming words, helped children absorb the language, she said. The singing was a conscious choice she made to undergird their second-language learning. She added that she used rhyming books when she could get them, as they seemed to inspire children to remember vocabulary words. She had found a rhyming book about birds. Every child in the class was to read a book about birds individually, so that everyone was studying birds from a variety of material. If a book chosen was too hard, Juana encouraged the student to seek the help of a friend. Juana believed that all students have their strengths. If they worked in groups, they could help one another. I asked Juana how she managed the expense of field trips. Each child was paying a 50 cent entrance fee to pioneer village. Some would share money, she said, and there was some money available from the school. She believed that taking students to the locations was one of the best ways to teach. Juana was particularly excited about the ”Heal the World” performance the triad had planned. At this time (prior to negative publicity about Michael Jackson), she believed that Jackson was a celebrity recognized by 156 all students. Lots of her students with older brothers and sisters already knew the words to the song, as their older siblings had the music at home. Juana had found a book about Michael Jackson that contained poems and prose. She believed that most children saw him as a friend because of the causes he supported. She said that when she watched her class practicing the ”Heal the World” song, she thought, ”my heart’s about to burst.” She knew that one student already had a friend who was a gang member. She hoped the song would teach valuable lessons about giving up violence and living in harmony. Juana’s new student teacher, Mr. Rodriquez, was a Minicorps student. She explained that Minicorps is a program for migrant students, both Latino and Hmong, to get them back into the classroom to tutor and then continue their own educations. Students had to be high school graduates to participate. Minicorps is a year-round program through the California State University system that follows such students through junior college, then encourages them to finish a four-year degree. Mr. Rodriguez added that he had wanted to be a teacher anyhow, but coming through college in the Minicorps system had solidified his choice. Perhaps because she had to work hard to earn her own credential, Juana said that she liked having student teachers, and had had one the previous year who had finished in May. She especially enjoyed Minicorps students, she said, as she believed that the program develops a support network for students who otherwise might not get through college. Many Minicorps students were getting bilingual, cross-cultural credentials, she said, and the schools in Fruitville certainly needed more well trained teachers. On April 14, 1993, I observed Mr. Rodriguez teaching one of his first lessons in Juana’s classroom. Students were playing ”telephone” or ”gossip.” They were patiently waiting their turns, but I thought they looked bored, since only one table at a time could whisper. Mr. R. would need to find 157 ways to keep all children involved. Later that afternoon, I heard Juana’s class practicing the ”Heal the World” song. They were obviously enthusiastic. CQDQIHLIQDE Did Juana really believe that her students were ”Linguistically Gifted Persons”? What did her actions in class and her remarks in interviews demonstrate? Yes, my observations lead me to the conclusion that Juana embraced the term ”Linguistically Gifted Persons” and saw her students positively, as capable learners. Juana interacted with her students in a way that illustrated her assumption that they were all able to learn and understand. Her lessons were challenging and sometimes abstract, but she encouraged children to work together and use their primary languages when necessary. I saw no evidence of deficit thinking on her part. Although Juana consistently asked known-answer questions in an Initiation-Response-Evaluation pattern, she patiently let the students figure out the answer to the addition problem in the math game, helping them see the errors in their logic when four students tried to make the number. In the Thurgood Marshall lesson and the fairy tale illustration lesson, Juana encouraged students to figure out the unfamiliar vocabulary words. All these lessons continued after the students solved their problem. For the most part, students remained attentive and engaged, and seemed to feel free to ask Juana questions or address her with comments. In all her lessons, Juana consistently maintained an open, friendly attitude. Very concerned about validating the cultures of all the children in her classes and taking them from what they already knew into new knowledge, she planned carefully, incorporating into her plans field trips and in-class lessons that would give them the understanding they needed. Frequently she started a unit with student predictions, which she saved. 158 Did Juana think students were ”gifted”? I remind my readers that the children had not been selected for their intelligence or tested for language proficiency in their primary languages. They attended Garcia simply because they lived in the Garcia attendance area. But Juana’s lesson plans assumed the children could master difficult material. For example, she provided a real stretch for students with the cultural and linguistic content of the inauguration lesson and the lesson about Thurgood Marshall. In both cases, she carefully made use of prediction through brainstorming to lay groundwork for students’ understanding. Then, when they misspoke (as in ”vice-principal” instead of ”vice-president"), she made no demeaning remarks. When students found vocabulary words or concepts beyond them (as in ”accomplish” and ”robe” in the lesson about Thurgood Marshall), she encouraged them to construct meanings by working together, then share those meanings with the group. Her behavior showed that she respected both students' intelligence and the power of cooperative learning. Juana’s lessons frequently integrated several subjects and involved cooperative groups. Her conference with Elena demonstrated that she consciously planned thematically. Her plans for work on spiders showed that, whether or not she could identify Vygotsky, she embraced the Vygotskian practice of scaffolding children’s understanding from what students already knew to what they needed to know. Juana’s investment of time and energy in the ”Heal the World” effort with her triad illustrated not only that she valued multi-age groupings but that she espoused the character education planks in the Garcia Plan. The foundation of the Garcia Plan was the belief that Garcia students were not deficient. But the Plan also encouraged student responsibility 159 for learning, student-centered approaches to instruction, and inquiry. Did Juana's practice reflect these beliefs? Not totally. I saw no genuine inquiry going on in her classroom, for example. But Juana’s room was arranged to facilitate student-centered activities. My observations indicated that she valued student movement and involvement in their lessons. She certainly dominated the classroom airtime with her speech, but her easy rapport with children encouraged them to initiate conversation with her and with one another, and they did. Her comments about the migrant programs, her dedication to the ”Heal the World” project, and her use of realia in the birds unit all illustrate her belief that her children could learn. They came to Garcia with language gifts already in place. It was her job to capitalize on those gifts. I would analyze Juana’s style as that of another teacher in transition, committed to the Garcia dream. E | 'IEEE'E l I Ellis 1 Among the youngest and least experienced teachers on the staff of Garcia, Paula had been a student teacher at another Fruitville elementary school when she heard from her principal about Elena’s plans for the new school. Her principal, a friend of Elena’s, had told Elena that she would have offered Paula a job herself if she had had any openings. In fact, the principal had called Elena to recommend Paula when she heard about the new school. Elena had been impressed when she watched Paula teach. And she had continued to be supportive of Paula. At the end of Paula's first year at Garcia, Elena and Maria had nominated Paula for the International Teacher of the Year Award for her involvement in the school’s cultural activities. 160 Classroom Organization I observed Paula in two classrooms in consecutive years. In both rooms, she arranged the student desks facing each other to create four long tables. Four sets of eight students faced one other across the tables. The bulletin boards and walls were also similarly decorated in both rooms. A new teacher with few files of bulletin board resources on which to draw, Paula favored commercial posters. Prominently displayed, for example, was a poster on the steps in the writing process. Large maps of the world and the United States decorated the walls of the classroom, reflecting the curricular emphasis on geography at the fifth grade level. The US map was dotted with small Post-it Notes from a classroom exercise. A globe sat on a blue laminate shelf that ran around the perimeter of the room. Near the globe was Paula’s overhead projector, usually covered with the transparencies from a recent lesson. High overhead was the cursive alphabet. On one of my visits, the soffit at the front of the room was decorated with colorful, attractively displayed student-made collages of geometric figures. Beside the white board on the side of the room hung a handwritten poster listing Paula’s primary language groups. At that time, she had six students in the English group, ten in the Spanish group, ten in the Hmong group and four in the Khmer group. On my first observation, another chart listed new vocabulary words in all languages. Also during my first observation, the back bulletin board of the room sported a neatly recopied brainstorm from a science lesson, the Science and Technology for Children unit on Microworlds. The title of the brainstorm was, ”What We Want to Find Out About Magnifiers.” On a June 1993 visit, the classroom pet, a large white rabbit, hopped about the room as students worked. A popcorn machine the class was using to earn money for an end-of-school camping experience sat in one comer. The room looked like the 161 home of a student-centered teacher who was concerned about the second- language acquisition of her students. A detective would note that the teacher was using prediction and brainstorming to lay groundwork for learning. a 1 son: e ra h The first time I observed Paula, in January 1993, she was teaching a geography lesson. Her classroom was located in one of the portable classrooms behind the new school building. (California law requires that each new school be built with a certain percentage of portable classrooms; the logic is that such classrooms are more cost effective if population centers shift and enrollment falls.) Paula was expecting to be observed by Elena or by Maria, the assistant principal, for an evaluation of her teaching. Maria started observing, but was called away. Elena came in about halfway through the lesson. In this geography exercise, Paula had some students standing up and others sitting down to illustrate longitude and latitude, in Total Physical Response fashion. All children present were participating enthusiastically. As the geography lesson continued, Paula gave pairs of students assignments using large laminated maps of the United States. Paula distributed a worksheet of questions (see Appendix E); students clustered in groups of two to four along the long tables, talking in several languages in a quiet buzz of activity. Most of Paula’s direct questions to the class that day were of a typical Initiation-Response-Evaluation pattern. As students worked, Paula circulated among them. The students had rearranged themselves roughly into primary language groups, as was apparently their custom; Paula did not object. In fact, she reminded them that they could go sit by someone else if they needed to get help. Three students walked to the large world map at the front of the room and argued quietly about the size of the area controlled by Saddam Hussein. Paula 162 asked another group to explain a question in Spanish to a student who needed help. At the end of the lesson, Paula asked the Table Leaders to collect the worksheet papers. All students returned to their regular seats when the geography work session ended. I wrote in my field notes for that day that Paula appeared to value the languages of her students, and she clearly believed in active, cooperative learning. She was incorporating the Total Physical Response theory of language learning in designing lessons for her children. In all respects, she appeared to be a young teacher working in concert with the Garcia Philosophy, believing that her students were ”Linguistically Gifted Persons.” Sample Lessons; Math and Beadinglfiogial Studios On June 17, 1993, I observed Paula’s class beginning at 8:35 a.m. Although this was a different classroom, students again sat facing one another across long tables. Her desk sat to the side, in an alcove, although on that day, she talked to the class from the front of the room or the side, at the white board. On the front board on that day Paula had written ten math problems ranging from the area of a triangle to pre-algebraic equations to a ”story” problem. When I arrived, Paula’s students were doing a mathematics practice exercise she called ”Five-A-Day,” despite the ten problems. Paula paced back and forth in front of the classroom, her demeanor serious, ignoring the stool she sometimes used as a perch while talking to the class. While the students worked the math problems, Paula read aloud from thank you notes they had written to an art teacher who had visited to show how Jackson Pollock worked and to assist the class with painting. Apparently the class had brainstormed what to say in the notes, especially the need to apologize for their behavior on that day, as the notes had very similar themes. 163 The transcription of my audiotape of the session reads: Paula: You take the notes that you wrote....”Dear Mr. Bolton, Hi, how are you? We’re sorry that we didn’t follow the directions that you set, but I did enjoy the painting. We enjoyed taking your time. It was very nice of you. / / Thank you for all the time that you spent with us. Thank you very much, Mr. Bolton.” Paula: ”Dear Mr. Bolton, thank you for having us paint with you at the showing of Jackson Pollock’s paintings. I really enjoyed that. It was a lot of fun. I hope we get to do more of these with you. I really enjoyed the stories you told us.” This person is a girl. (Students work on math) Paula: That was very nice of you. Okay. / / ”Mr. Bolton, I would like to thank you for taking the time to teach us about Mr. Pollock’s paintings. I really enjoyed the art, because art is one of my best things that I do. Also I appreciate the time that you took. I’m sorry that some of our students were messing around and not listening, but Mr. Bolton, I did follow directions and clean up the paint.”....Okay, that's all we’re gonna read. You guys all finished? Students: N 0. Paula: Okay, boys and girls. I would like for you to clear your desks except for your own paper. Turn toward the board, please. / / Thank you very much, Table Six. I appreciate it. Thank you, Table Two. Almost ready. Table One’s almost ready. If you're not finished, that’s okay because you’re going to keep your own paper today. Um, you’ll need some scrap paper. Okay. Work some of these problems. Okay, normally you have five problems, but why did I give you double that amount today? Sonia? Student: Practice. Paula: We’re doing a little bit of practice because next week you’re going to have your ITAS test. So, we need to practice things that we already know. None of these things we have forgotten. So, Number One, I’m going to go ahead and work out Number One and then the rest of the problems I’m going to ask you to help with. Okay, this is a multiplication problem, and I’m going to start with the number on the right. Okay, you say it with me. Five times four? Students: Twenty. Paula: Four times two is? 164 Students: Eight. Paula: Three times four is? Students: Twelve. Paula: Plus one? Students: Thirteen. Paula: What do I need to do next, class? What....? Now I know one times three hundred and twenty-five is three hundred and twenty-five. What's next, class? Student: Plus. Paula: Plus what? Oh, add them. Thank you. Zero plus zero? Students: Zero. Paula: Zero plus five? Students: Five. Paula: Three plus two? Students: Five. Paula: And what do I do next? Students: (Unintelligible response.) Paula: Where? How do I know where to put it? Students: (Unintelligible response.) Paula: Count three, thank you. One, two, three. Very good. Four thousand five hundred and fifty. Raise your hand if you got that right. So almost, about three quarters of this class. Very good. Okay, Number Two. We forgot. Some of us forgot how to do these problems here because it’s been a long time. Those of us who do remember, what can you tell me? These are called what? Anybody know? Starts with an E. E-X-P...exponent. To the power. Five to the ....power. 165 Paula asked three volunteers to come to the chalk board and complete the problems. She continued in this vein until all the problems had been worked on the board and checked by the whole class. Paula’s demeanor left me questioning my earlier impression of her teaching. Several of the problems on the board required multiple operations such as squaring, then subtraction and division. A number of the 25 students present had seemed distracted by Paula’s reading to them as they worked the problems. Immediately after their Five—A-Day practice, Paula had the students do a Line-A-Day—a grammar correction exercise. Both exercises seemed part of the regular classroom routine, as students needed little explanation of directions. After a few minutes of student work time, Paula wrote the correct answer to the Line-A-Day exercise, ”They go to the store everyday,” under the original sentence, ”They goes to the star everyday.” These exercises seemed unconnected to the rest of the lesson for the day. Neither exercise impressed me as appropriate for a truly experiential classroom. I thought them surprising, based on my first impression of a teacher who created a context for students’ learning. Paula’s next activity was a reading lesson using the local newspaper. Paula distributed a complete newspaper to each child, then gave students five minutes to find an article they’d like to share with the class. As they read, she walked around the perimeter of the room, the classroom rabbit over her shoulder. She asked several girls to help her look for the rabbit’s food, again interrupting the students’ work. Then she picked up her own copy of the newspaper. The discussion of the newspaper lesson, as transcribed from audiotape, follows: Paula: Okay. I’m behind you guys because I haven’t even looked at the paper today. Which newspaper do I like to read? Do you remember? 166 (Several hands go up immediately. Student responses) Paula: Charles, you have your hand up. What’s the newspaper I read? Student: WWI: Paula: WM; My favorite newspaper is the SarLEraooisoo WMd in the afternoon, sometimes I like to read the Boo, but I like to read the Chzoniola You know what? I think I’m gonna share first. May I share first? Okay. This is a very, very lovely picture, and I'm not gonna really know what’s going on in this picture unless I do what? Students: Read. Paula: What, what’s it called underneath the picture? Starts with a C. C-A-P. Students: Caption. Paula: I’m gonna read a little bit, then I'm gonna ask someone else to read. Okay? Student: Do we have to follow along? Paula: You do need to follow along. Yes. Very good. Around the State. What state do you think we’re talking about? Student: California. Paula: (pointing to a graphic on the page) Is that California? Student: No. Paula: Is Los Angeles a state? So what state do you think they’re talking about? Student: California. Paula: Okay. Okay. ’Boy, ten, reunited with Beethoven. I'm gonna read the first paragraph, then ask someone else. Los Angeles. Four days after his disappearance, a lost Lhasa Apso dog named Beethoven was found and reunited with a dying ten-year-old boy.’ Lhasa Apso, can you say that? (Students respond in chorus.) Paula: My dog is a mix of German Shepherd and what? Do you remember? Students: Chow. 167 Paula: That's right. So this dog has just one type. So go ahead and read the second paragraph. Go ahead and learn some more about this boy. I’m gonna call on somebody that I haven’t talked to yet today. Who haven't I talked to yet today? , why don’t you go ahead and read? (Student reads, stumbles over word.) Paula: CatastrOphe. (Student continues reading.) Okay. Martin, uh, is only able to think like a nine-month—old baby. That’s all he really understands. If you have a baby brother or sister who is about nine months old or a year, that's all really Martin understands, but do you think Martin understood when his dog was gone? Students: Yeah. Paula: Obviously. How did he show that he was upset? Student: Cried. Paula: By what? Student: Crying. Paula: He was crying. He knew that his dog was gone. That’s right. Third paragraph. Continue reading for me, please, uh, . (Student reads.) Paula: So, this is a boy who doesn’t have very much time left, and every bit of time he has he probably wants to spend it doing something he enjoys, and do you think he enjoys spending time with Beethoven? I would, I think. A brain tumor is like cancer. Have you heard of cancer before? It’s something that eats away at your body and your mind, and it tears you apart. It’s a disease. Student: Does he know he's going to die? Paula: If he’s nine months old, then, if, or, excuse me, if he’s ten years old and thinks like a nine-month-old, do you think he knows he’s dying? We don’t know. We’re not Martin. We don’t, we don’t know what Martin’s thinking. But we do know that Martin loves Beethoven, and missed him very much, and was very happy. So Martin can think. He has emotions, correct? So, his, do you 168 have another question? No other questions? All right. Continue reading for me, please, this paragraph. Someone? I tell you, and Charles are on the ball this morning. They have had their hand up every single time. Charles? Student: Someone recognized Beethoven. (Student noise.) Paula: Okay. Are we ready? Put your finger on the word Martin, because that’s where we’re going to begin reading, and your newspaper should be open so you can see the entire front page. Thank you. ’5 ready to go. and , they’re ready to go. Okay. The title on this picture says....’with best friend...who doctors say has six months to live, is wheeled into his home by his mother after being reunited with his dog, Beethoven. The dog disappeared from the family’s car outside a hospital four days ago. Martin, who has twenty-eight brain tumors, was greeted by Beethoven when he arrived home Wednesday from school in the ....section of Los Angeles.’ Okay, this story’s page A4. What can you tell me by just what we read here? What can you tell me about what we’ve read? __, what can you tell me? (Student response.) Paula: Okay. He has brain tumors. Who has brain tumors? The dog? Student: The boy. Paula: What's the boy’s name? Martin? Okay, , what else can you tell me? (Student response.) Paula: You know what? I have a really hard time... Okay, um, Martin, Mar, Martin is dying, and unfortunately he has only six months to live, and his dog means a great deal to him, and the dog’s name is what? Student: Beethoven. Paula: Beethoven. Now, we’ve learned the who, what, when, where, why in just this short amount. We know that we’re talking about who? Student: Martin. Paula: Martin and who? Student: His dog. 169 Paula: Beethoven. Uh, what was it about? What is really the story, this short little story about? Student: (Unintelligible response.) Paula: He has six months to live and his dog was lost. They told us where. Where was this? (Student response) Paula: Okay. When was this? Student: Wednesday. Paula: When was this? When was his dog lost? Student: Four days ago. Paula: Four days ago? Which would be what day? Student: Monday. Paula: Monday? Sunday or Monday? Okay. It doesn’t really tell us why the dog disappeared. But, it says the dog disappeared outside the car. Correct? We don’t know how, though. So it tells us a lot of information here. What do you think the boy, Martin, I think, I really don’t like saying the boy and the dog, I like to use names. What do you think Martin felt like after Beethoven...? How do you think he felt? When Beethoven...? Lucy? Student: Sad. Paula: Why sure, he, he’d feel very sad. Do you think that, uh, Beethoven is good friends with him? Students: Yeah. Paula: Okay. So where do we go to find out more? Students, in chorus: A4. Paula: Okay. Let’s go to A4. Student: Ifound it. Paula: Wilmington. 170 Student: ...’Wilmington after he reported’.... Paula: The parents said of the... Student: (Unintelligible response) Paula: From the ...car. And I’m gonna help you with the rest because it’s a mouthful, okay, Charles? Want to try it with me? ’From the car at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center.’ That’s quite a mouthful. Last paragraph of the story. Who’d like to read the last paragraph? , go ahead. (Student reads.) Paula: He said. (Student reads.) Paula: Okay. I’m very happy to see that Martin got his dog back. I think it’s very nice. Okay, now it’s your turn to share. We have ten minutes before we go outside. 50 next, instead of you reading to me, I want you to tell me, to give me a short little, uh, story about what your story’s about. So it’s a story about a story. Oh, let’s see. I see Charles has his hand up. And Jimmy has his hand up. I think I can guess what Charles is gonna talk about. Can, can I take a guess? Or , take a guess. Student: The Bulls? Paula: Are you possibly gonna talk about the Bulls-Suns game? Student: Yes. Paula: Would you like to share with us? Student: (Speaks quietly.) Paula: Can everyone hear _? Students: Yes. Paula: What is it, ? Repeat it for me. (End of tape.) 171 The next tape reflects similar one-sided conversation, even though Paula had asked the students to share. One student’s comment on a story about a local high school in the ”Teen Tempo” section of the paper reminded Paula of her experiences as yearbook advisor for the Garcia School. Then she talked at some length about her memories of high school — the prom, getting her first car, and so on. Before long, it was time for the children to go outside for physical education. Paula’s dominance of the classroom ”discussion” was, I believe, completely unconscious. Yet she had severely limited her students’ opportunities for participating in discussion. w' n 1 Paula told me that she loved Garcia Elementary, though she tended to take her work home with her, both physically and emotionally. On the day we talked, she was especially worried about one African-American student whose mother had called to say he had not come home the previous night. The telephones in each classroom at Garcia made it easy for parents to reach teachers to check on a child, and vice versa. This young man's father had died during the past year, and the child was acting out his grief in anger toward his mother. Paula was afraid that the boy had fallen in with a gang of older youths who hung out on the street corners near the school. The boy’s mother had told Paula that she was losing her job and would have to move out of the apartment complex where she was living. That might mean that she would be forced to take her son out of Garcia Elementary, something she did not want to do. Paula said that two of her other fifth grade students, both boys, one Latino and one Asian, were already gang members. Paula was doing her best to counteract those influences 0f the community on her students. 172 After her class on April 13, 1993, Paula and I spoke about her concerns regarding students graduating from Garcia. Garcia is a feeder school for Redwood Middle School, whose staff had no interest in the Garcia program, she said. They wanted to segregate into English as a Second Language classes the same students that Garcia had had immersed in English classes with primary language support. When Garcia staff members expressed concern, the response of the middle school administration had been only to request that Garcia do more testing of students so that Redwood could place them with greater accuracy into ”appropriate tracks.” The Garcia staff had learned that Redwood’s Limited English Proficient students were segregated into one wing of the building, as they were at some other Fruitville middle schools. Paula found that situation disturbing, as she thought it would negate many of the gains in language made by Garcia students before they left sixth grade. Paula’s caring for the school and for the students were evident in her conversation with me while her students were out of the room. (She was able to stay inside during that day’s physical education class because she and the other fifth grade teachers rotated playground duty.) She shared that her students would become experts on countries during their sixth grade year, for which she would ”move up” with the students. Paula showed me pictures of some recent classroom activities, including an occasion when she had arranged for her neighbor to bring an ambulance to school for the students to examine during their health class. Paula also showed me photos of the school’s Cinco de Mayo celebration, in which her class had recently participated. Both of these lessons impressed me as more experiential and effective than the lesson I had just witnessed. As we talked, Paula told me her concerns about behavior in her current class, in which several boys had had ”play fights.” Her current class was 173 also more prone to talk while she was talking than her first Garcia class, she said, and that habit bothered her. Interestingly, she attributed some of the talkiness to students’ familiarity with one another. She thought they were ”almost like brothers and sisters” since they'd been together the previous year. Paula was not sure how she felt about the ongoing togetherness; she was concerned that the students might not make a wide variety of friends. One student in Paula’s current class had major behavioral problems. He had struck his mother at home, though he seemed ”happy-go-lucky” in school. Paula had noticed an odd collection of items in his desk, and concluded that he might be stealing teachers’ pens and scissors. The young man was seeing a therapist, and Paula was worried about him. She said she was in frequent contact with his mother. I wondered as I listened if Paula’s concerns about the deportment of her students were behind the very teacher-centered lesson I had just seen. Paula told me that she was very concerned about the school’s future if Elena moved to another building. At a recent staff meeting, Elena had made an emotional announcement that she would probably be leaving soon, since the superintendent had ”put her in charge of a new, um pilot program out there. A magnet kind of school,” said Paula. Paula worried about what would happen to the staff and the program without Elena. The staff was not cohesive, in her opinion, perhaps because so many of them had been mentor teachers or very confident teachers in their previous schools. Because there were so many strong personalities on the Garcia staff, teachers ”do not always mesh,” she said. She was apprehensive about what would happen to the whole school program without Elena. Knowing she would was leaving, ”I feel the staff has lost commitment,” Paula said, ”and that frightens me. I feel that she’s good for us. She keep us moving, and she keeps us focused. It's going to be hard to find another Elena” (6/ 17/ 93). 174 Finally, Paula said she was worried about the perception of Garcia by the rest of the district’s teachers and administrators, who were showing signs of professional jealousy about the new school and the acclaim it had already enjoyed. ”We need our arms in slings so we quit patting ourselves on the back. We need to remember this is not Garcia Unified,” she said. ”We need to work with others. We've alienated Redwood.” C ' ns How did Paula’s practice reflect the staff’s decision to call students ”Linguistically Gifted Persons"? How did her teaching and her remarks during interviews align with the rest of the Garcia Plan? Using Larry Cuban’s terminology, I would say that during my observations, Paula’s classroom reflected incremental rather than fundamental change. By his barometer, her class, though apparently student—centered on my first observation, had almost every earmark of teacher-centeredness on subsequent observations: 1) her talk far exceeded that of her students; 2) she used predominantly whole-class instruction; 3) she determined how class time would be used; 4) she relied on materials and exercises she selected (not a textbook perhaps, but a newspaper, Five-a-Day or Line-a-Day exercise, or a lecture with overheads); 5) her classroom arrangement lent itself less easily than others to real group work, and her position on the stool or pacing in front of the class suggested a classically presentational style (1993, 7). Cuban warns that researchers tend to underestimate the constraints on teachers. Lest I make that mistake, I suggest that Paula’s greatest constraints were her youth and lack of confidence in herself. Her classroom practices hinted at a new teacher’s fear of losing control of her class. Because she was teaching older students, several of whom had behavioral problems in the past, and she 175 was not yet sure that they would respect her, she sent authority messages. These messages were sent to students through a less-than-mobile classroom arrangement, through teacher talk, through facial expression and responses to student questions. On several occasions during the newspaper lesson—for example, the question about whether students needed to follow along as she read and the question about whether Martin knew he was going to die—the students initiated the conversation. The first question, however, was only procedural. The second question, ”Does he know he’s going to die?” was genuine inquiry and offered potential for a real conversation during which students could have safely speculated without known-answer questions or teacher expertise. Unfortunately, Paula's apparent need to control the classroom discourse, telling students answers, shut down the conversation. Paula’s response began nervously with a rhetorical question and included a put-down: ”If he’s nine months old, then, if or, excuse me, if he’s ten years old and thinks like a nine- month-old, do you think he knows he’s dying? We don’t know. We’re not Martin...” The remainder of her interaction with the class stuck closely to known-answer questions, carefully excluding the possibility of further real conversation. During Paula's newspaper lesson, children had been extremely attentive, apparently enjoying their reading of the paper. The newspapers took up lots of room on the tables, and some children had stood to read —a situation with which Paula appeared comfortable. I saw no children off-task. As a first- year teacher, Paula very likely did not realize that she had not only dominated the classroom interaction, but that she had quizzed students on some rather trivial points. The name of her own favorite newspaper, for example, was not worth as much classroom ”air time” as she gave it. She also tended to ask students to share or to read aloud, then to take over the sharing or reading 176 session herself in her zeal to make connections for students. In the newspaper lesson, she had advertised that students would read what they chose, but she had left only ten minutes at the end of the discussion of her story for the rest of the class to share theirs. Paula’s questions were consistently of the known-answer variety, in an Initiation-Response-Evaluation pattern, with students getting very little chance to talk when they were not reading aloud. Her demeanor during lessons was serious and firm, with few smiles. Still, students felt comfortable enough to ask questions. The reading lesson proceeded much as the math lesson did, with a long list of known-answer questions that gave children opportunities to make one-word responses. Their frequent chorus of replies indicated that this was standard classroom practice. By the end of the lesson, Paula had had far more opportunity to talk and to think than had her students, despite her having asked them to share. Paula taught the oldest and most linguistically proficient students in the triad, yet she relied heavily on direct-method teaching, as Dodson (1983) says is often the case in immersion classrooms. Like the Welsh teachers in his study, Paula’s questions indicated rather low expectations for her students. Paula’s students had little opportunity for output during my observations, a situation that mirrored concerns raised by Genessee (1986) and Beardsmore and Kohls (1988). Possibly Paula’s tum-taking behavior indicated unexamined assumptions and continued deficit thinking, issues brought up in the work of Hull, Rose, et a1. (1991), although I believed Paula when she spoke of her affection and concern for her students. I am convinced that she was pleased to be part of the Garcia staff and that she believed passionately in the Garcia Plan. Because I observed these contradictions in Paula's classroom behavior and her stated beliefs, I believe Paula to be a teacher in transition. If I 177 had to characterize her using the CBAM model, I would say that she vacillated between the ”personal” and ”management" stages of concern; she was trying the innovation, but her acceptance of it was more intellectual than practical so far. She had not mastered ”mechanical use” of the set of innovations embodied in the Garcia Plan (Hall, Wallace and Dossett, 1973; Loucks, 1975). She expressed fear that her colleagues, strong personalities all, would not continue the mission of the school if Elena left. Leadership and coaching from more experienced peers will be important to Paula’s development, as I think she understood fully. When Paula professed to believe strongly in the Garcia Plan, she spoke the truth. In fact, her very lack of confidence in her own teaching might have made her more perceptive than other Garcia staff to the politics within the staff and to the sniping of outsiders. She expressed an astute sensitivity to professional jealousy of Garcia staff among educators in the district. Paula's case study calls for further observations after she's had more time to assimilate her beliefs and translate them into practice. In my short time interacting with Paula, I saw hopeful signs that she was making her practice reflect the school’s belief system. For example, she had good rapport with her students. Both students’ occasional initiation of conversation and her teasing a student about the Bulls game suggested genuine caring and some real conversation. Paula had already made some use of cooperative groups even though her interaction with students was decidedly teacher-centered. Paula is a young teacher with much promise. I expect that over time, she will create a more liberal ”hybrid” approach than she demonstrated in my observations. In the future, her practice may mirror her belief that Garcia students are indeed ”Linguistically Gifted Persons.” 178 Tri — econd Fourth nd ixth r achers i #4: Ta i . ond rad Tammi, a young teacher of mixed Latino / Asian heritage, had been teaching at another Fruitville Unified elementary school for three years when she heard that Garcia would be opening in the fall of 1991. When she learned that her former vice principal, Maria, would be transferring to Garcia, she was even more eager to apply. Elena told me that she still remembered the excellent science lesson on snails that Tammi taught during Elena's pre-hiring observation. She had been impressed that Tammi already understood experiential learning. r w1 On October 13, 1992, I observed Elena’s pre-evaluation conference with Tammi, who described a unit on the human body that she had designed. She wanted to give students some idea what’s inside the body as well as what’s outside, she said. She had based her unit on a district unit called, ”Here’s Looking at You, 2000." She was trying to incorporate what the second grade teachers in all tracks at Garcia agreed on as important teaching concepts for second grade. She said she would find out what students knew about the topic and use that information in planning. She would not expect as much from students having language difficulty. Tammi added that she had several very advanced students in her class, and that they could help others. She said that she just expected every child to do his / her best. She wanted to see improvement in all areas of the district’s annual standardized test, the Individual Tests of Academic Skills (IT AS). She wanted each child to be more successful than s/ he had beenlin first grade. Elena talked with Tammi about the language 179 development components of the Garcia school site plan. Elena wanted Garcia LEP students to score at least two levels higher than the district goal. Tammi said that students in second grade would publish two books, one in English, and one in their primary language. Elena told Tammi that the district program evaluation specialist and the California State evaluation team would come to the school in March to evaluate the program. I commented in my field notes on the interview that Tammi seemed to value her students and to be concerned with supporting their primary languages while they learned English. Tammi’s student desks were organized in groups of four to form small tables with students facing one another. This setup allowed for maximum flexibility, as desks and children could move easily. The room was decorated with colorful student art work. A poster listing students in primary language groups hung beside the white board. 5 II .1 E 5.151.,3 When I observed Tammi's class on October 14, 1992, I captured little of Tammi’s interaction with students on tape, though I encountered an intriguing class. The problem was that Tammi had lost her voice and could barely whisper. She was seated on a chair with the class clustered at her feet, listening closely. She was talking to the class about new books she had brought from the library: Tammi: And I have five (books), but I need to give them back to the library very shortly, so this is what I’m gonna do. I’m gonna share one of these books with you right now, and we’re gonna talk about it. Then after lunch I’m gonna have 180 these available for you to use for reading....These are brand new books. They’ve never been used by anybody. And (unintelligible) and trees, and a forest (unintelligible). I will give special preference to these children/ / (names). This is really neat about this book. This book was written in Australia. How many of you have heard about Australia? Raise your hand if you can tell me something about Australia. Student: They have kangaroos. Tammi. They have kangaroos. That's the first thing I think of when I think of Australia. Kangaroos. Student: Elephants? Tammi: Elephants? Student: N o. Tammi: Who knows? I’m not sure. But I know for sure.... Student: (Unintelligible) Tammi: I think that must have come from a movie, though. Student: (Unintelligible) Tammi: Oh, my goodness. Student: (Unintelligible) Tammi: Very interesting. Student: (Unintelligible) Tammi: Wild animals? Tammi: Does anybody know where Australia is? Student: (Unintelligible) Tammi: Did you hear that? It’s surrounded by water. Students: (several respond) 181 Tammi: It's one of the seven continents, and it’s very large, and it's the only one that’s surrounded completely by water. (She goes to a large map on the wall.) Tammi: Okay. Here’s where we are— the United States. Can I have somebody who can look up here and see if you already know where Australia is? (Students talk, and there are sounds of movement.) Tammi: Surrounded by water. Right there. Australia. Surrounded by water. It’s a continent. Now, did you know, , what is in Australia that I know for sure we’ve studied about? Student: (Unintelligible) Tammi: Australia has spiders. And this book is an introduction to Australian spiders. These spiders are found where? Students: (in chorus) Australia. Tammi: Yes, they are. These are what some of the spiders look like. This front page is the contents. This tells you what’s in the book. In this particular book they have what spiders look like, where spiders live, what spiders do with (unintelligible), how spiders feed, and spiders and people. Now I thought this was really interesting because a lot of these spiders we don't have. There are hundreds of different kinds of spiders in Australia. Later, an older student from the triad read to the children, all of whom were very attentive. Afterwards, students worked in small groups on the body lesson. They had made life-sized cutouts of themselves out of brown paper. They were pasting cutouts of kidneys and bladders into position on the body shapes. Tammi had prepared the shapes of the organs for students and handed out drawings on worksheets. It was the students’ job to color the organs, then cut them out and paste them into position. Although the students were hard at work, I wondered how much of the lesson they were really grasping. On January 25, 1993, I observed Tammi’s class working on the floor doing sentences with the following spelling words: 1. come; 2. they; 3. when; 4. 182 snow; 5. grow; 6. blowing; 7. windblown; 8. below; 9. crow; 10. row. Since several of the words rhymed, I asked Tammi if they had come from a recently read storybook. Tammi said they had. Students worked enthusiastically, though they had only about ten minutes before lunch. One small girl pointed out that a male classmate did not have his shoes on, and was therefore not ready for lunch. Another girl painstakingly wrote a sentence , ”I see a person named They.” (This sort of mistake made logical sense, given the common Hmong first names with similar sounds, such as Thai.) Again, I wondered if the students were comprehending what they were doing. I spoke with Tammi on January 25, 1993, shortly before she would take maternity leave for the remainder of my observation time. It was Tammi’s second year at Garcia. She had already learned to be concerned about students who transferred in during the middle of the school year. She said the Garcia program was easy to explain to students who started at the beginning of the year in a triad, but it was harder to make clear the uniforms and customs of the school, etc. when students entered the school in mid-year. One student in her class had a non-supportive parent. The triad aide had bought a uniform for the child, and the child wore it only a few times. The child wanted to participate in the school practice, but the mother did not understand. One boy in Tammi’s class was of particular concern to her because he threw tantrums. When those occurred, the other students looked for the teacher’s reaction. Now Tammi had the boy on a monitoring behavior program. She called his parents frequently. The boy in question was the exception, she said. Most of her students were cooperative and eager to learn. They were especially proud of their cultures. Tammi really liked the Garcia extended day program (see Appendix J for Garcia 183 Typical Day Schedule). When students worked in extended day sessions with their triad peers in the upper grades, they learned more. She also believed in having students work in cooperative groups within her class. Tammi had been in the Cal State master’s program the previous year through the on-site inservice, but her pregnancy had caused her to take a break from the MA program this year. When I asked if the inservice was helping her, she said yes and no. The first year at the school was rough. She said the teachers needed more than just the lessons in the inservice sessions to master the material on language acquisition. They needed more time to talk about the different techniques they had learned for working with language minority students. They needed more review. They had attempted to address this problem by discussing their leamings in their grade level meetings, but they always had so much to talk about that the meetings did not work well for review. A lot of her peers agreed with Tammi that they needed more follow-up on what they’d learned, she said, and she knew that they’d said so in their evaluations of the Cal State inservice program. Despite her frustrations, Tammi much preferred Garcia to her previous school. She said what she loved the most was the sense of responsibility among her students. They knew that their actions were what they had chosen. Teachers emphasized that Garcia was the students’ school, she said. As a result, there had been no litter or graffiti problems at Garcia, and very little theft. Other differences between Garcia and her previous school were: 1) better articulation among the grade level classrooms and within the triad; 2) the opportunity for teachers to earn credits beyond the BA right on the school site; 3) the outstanding teachers at Garcia; 4) the staff openness to sharing across grade level classrooms and beyond. She had liked the administrators at her former school, but there were defensive teachers there. That attitude was not a 184 problem at Garcia. Tammi said that Garcia had only one vice principal, unlike her former school, which had two. At the other school, she’d been aware of favoritism that did not exist at Garcia. The language growth of students at Garcia was very rewarding to see. In her classroom, she had some advanced students, some at the lower level and some recent refugees still in their silent periods. A couple of her students had already moved up on the district’s language proficiency test. Tammi thought she might prefer a departmentalized setup instead of having all second grade teachers teach all subjects, as was the practice at Garcia. At the end of our interview, I was convinced that Tammi believed fully in the Garcia language policies and positive philosophy. She supported the decision to call students ”Linguistically Gifted Persons." But she was not as comfortable as she would like to be with how to bring the entire Garcia Plan to life in her classroom. W On January 19, 1993 I observed Tammi’s participation in a meeting of the second grade teachers from all tracks at Garcia. Three of the four teachers were present. These teachers were in their second year of working with their classes, so they would be moving back to first grade the following year. Their conversation centered, therefore, on techniques the kindergarten teachers were using. They discussed the language level of the current kindergarten students and various approaches to teaching them. One teacher shared that she had her second graders keep a journal, and that she was writing back to her students every night. All three teachers said they were concerned about the consumption of materials during extended day sessions. They were afraid they would run out of materials before year end. 185 Conclusions What did the staff’s decision to call students ”Linguistically Gifted Persons" mean in Tammi’s classroom? How were her assumptions about the students apparent in her teaching and her interviews? In my brief observations of Tammi’s class, I was able to see that she had a knack for carrying on more real conversations with students than did some other teachers I observed. Her discussion with students about Australia is a good example. Even though she asked some known-answer questions about Australia as a continent, she seemed open to learning from students, and relaxed enough not to be the "telling” authority at all times. Her admission that she didn’t know whether there were elephants in Australia was a good example of her ability to say ”I don’t know.” She added that the idea of elephants ”must have come from a movie, though," indicating that the child’s version of elephants in Australia was logical. Even though I did not capture students’ remarks on tape, her responses of ”Oh, my goodness,” and "Very interesting” and her question, ”Wild animals?” all appear to be fragments of an honest conversation and not just ”teacher talk." Tammi had definite ideas of what she wanted students to learn, as I observed in her interview with Elena, though I am not convinced that her lesson plans demonstrated good understanding of developmental appropriateness for primary students, even those fluent in English. Some abstractions, for example, the placement of internal organs, seemed too advanced for second graders, especially those who were also struggling to master a new language. My observation of the young girl’s sentence about a person named "They” illustrated that Tammi’s students, though enthusiastic, were not always comprehending what she-told them. I wondered about the concept of a continent for second graders, and whether Tammi’s map lesson about Australia was comprehensible 186 to most of her students. In one of our interviews, Tammi had complained about a lack of practice in the inservice training for working with linguistically diverse students. Indeed, she seemed to have less mastery of the concepts of second language acquisition than did Carmen, who also taught young children. I saw less evidence of honoring of cultural diversity in Tammi’s classroom, but I wondered if my limited observations were to blame for that conclusion. Still, Tammi valued movement in her classes, she listened to her students, and she did not appear to be tied to particular materials. All in all, her classroom appeared to be less teacher-centered than those of several of the teachers I observed. Despite the frustrations she enumerated for me, Tammi loved the school’s philosophy and the students. She was fiercely proud to be part of the Garcia faculty, and she was consciously trying to enact the Garcia Plan in her classroom. I would classify her as another teacher in transition, fully embracing the tenets of the Garcia Plan and eschewing a deficit model. But she was also honest and confident enough to admit that she was not yet comfortable with everything she had studied in her inservice or with everything about the new school. I had the sense that she was not yet sure how best to serve her Garcia students. A cognitive psychologist might say that Tammi was suffering from the cognitive dissonance that often accompanies new learning. WW Ilene P., the Track D fourth grade teacher, had been one of the six teachers to move from Elena’s previous school to Garcia. Ilene had been just 21 years old and a first year teacher when Elena hired her into the other building. She had been there two years when she transferred to Garcia as one of the first 187 teachers hired for the new school. Ilene had started in third grade at Garcia, and was in the second year with her class when I did my first taped observation. WW Ilene’s classroom was arranged in tables of four students each, with the teacher’s desk at the back of the room. The atmosphere reminded me of Juana’s room, except that Ilene obviously loved to capture her students on film. One bulletin board was filled with ”scrapbook” records of class activities, organized into posters of photographs and labeled: ”Clay Sculptures," ”Whale Watching in Monterey,” ”Lao Dances with Danny,” ”San Juan Bautista Mission,” and "2—4-6 Triads Working Together.” On another bulletin board, student stories about their countries of origin sported photographs of themselves or family members in those countries. Another bulletin board held a large circular teacher- made chart of the writing process, with different steps (”pre-writing, writing, response, revision, editing, post-writing") covered with brainstormed concepts and students' school pictures. A big bulletin board titled ”California Gold Rush” featured a sizable student drawing of a stream, depicting the process of panning for gold. Enlarged vocabulary words such as ”Long Tom, pan, cradle, nuggets, lode” were sprinkled liberally around the stream. At the front of the room, a bulletin board covered in orange paper proclaimed ”Geometry is Hot" over displayed student papers. Beside the white board, a batch of student writing titled ”Typical Day at Garcia" hung near a grouping of phrases in many languages, all apparently meaning ”back door." Along the soffits of the room hung kites of all shapes. "Come Read Our Books!” invited a sign over the classroom library, near which hung a display of "Our Haiku Poems," each word- processed in large print and illustrated by students. A huge beach-ball globe hung suspended over the horseshoe-shaped table where Ilene visited with 188 reading groups. On the wall nearby hung a commercial poster of "Flags of Many Lands.” The classroom decor fairly shouted that this was a place where students learned actively and were valued by the teacher. : R i i l i Groups of five students joined Ilene at the table in the back of the classroom, while other students worked in groups on their own reading assignments. Each group of students was reading a different book, and all were writing in ”literature logs” as they read. Books children were reading included Heniblefiamunfieemlfi, W and leiinmefiamilx The ” Chocolate group” was especially excited to visit with Ilene about their reading, as the previous day the class had taken a field trip to a gold mine and a chocolate factory. They enjoyed describing the pounds of chocolate they had seen and the smell of their clothes and hair as they emerged from the factory. Ilene conversed for a few minutes with each group member, then asked for a volunteer who would share a literature log entry for a certain date. She asked to see the students’ reading calendars, and commented that the group was ahead of schedule. After the reading time, students worked in different groups on a gold rush game, which they played with vocabulary words and small bags of ”gold.” There were twenty-seven students in class on that day, and Ilene told me privately that eight of them had been assessed at one of the three lowest levels of English proficiency. Students played the game enthusiastically, recording progress in their ”Gold Rush Folders” of worksheets with appropriate questions. Volunteers read aloud from the overhead projector as Ilene went over the questions at the end of the game. 189 Students in Ilene’s class read and write frequently, publishing books of their writing every month. In April, they had published a ”culture book” and given copies of it to the kindergarten class and to the school library for other students to read. Ilene printed a word-processed group of stories from that book for me to read. Apparently, she and the children had already edited the stories, because they had only standard spellings and grammar when I received them. Tesfay had written: My Culture in Ethiopia —I liked to play games with my friends. I liked to swim all day on the beach with my dad. We had a lot of animals. We had goats, sheep and cows. I was a cowboy....During the night we took care of our animals. The hyena would eat our animals. All night my dad had to stay by the door so he could scare the hyena....I had a lot of uncles. Two in Ethiopia and two in the United States. The one in Addis Ababa would send us money in Ethiopia. We built a big bathroom for our community. My dad was the manager....One day a big cobra came to our community. Everybody started to move away except my family because my dad was the manager. My dad told them that he was a God cobra. He put a goat near the cobra, he didn’t eat the goat. He got a light in his mouth. If any man was going to kill the cobra, the cobra would kill everybody. The cobra went away by himself. Yuritzi wrote: When it is Cinco de Mayo we go home and we eat. We eat beans, tortilla, enchiladas, nachos, meat, bread, mole, salsa, tamales, tortas, elotes, manudo, posole, blanqillos, caperutada, burritos, tacos, aros con leche, papitas fritas and a lot more things. Then we have pifiatas, candy, agua de limon, agua de tamarindo, agua de naranja, agua de melon, agua de sandilla. Then we dance to the music. Then we break the pinata. Then when Cinco de Mayo is over, we go to sleep and dream. Veasna wrote: My mom and dad were born in Cambodia. When they were little they played Cambodian games like choing, monkey steals the leaves from the tree, powders, cream, water balloons and dancing. My mom and dad, they always eat white rice with fish 190 soup....When my mom and dad grew up they got married in Cambodia. I was born in Thailand. Then we came to America. I came to school in first grade. Cse wrote: Hi! My name is Cse. In our culture we cook very good when we celebrate Hmong New Year. When we go to Hmong New Year we throw the balls to know each other very well....We eat a lot of meat and rice. Whenever we eat meat or something, we eat it with rice. Every single thing we eat has to be with rice....We have beautiful costumes. We wear a lot of money, white dresses, or colorful dresses, a colorful hat, and put on make-up. Then we become very beautiful. We have a lot of different foods. This is my favorite food of all. We put some salt, salad, and a lot of stuff together. I don’t know how to say what it is called. I like it a lot.... Several children wrote their pieces in their primary languages. They had not been translated into English, but had been printed as the children had written them. On June 17, 1993, I accompanied Ilene’s class on a ”Little Reader’s Picnic” to a nearby park. Each fourth grader took one or two kindergarten children as partners. The fourth grade students had done much planning for the event; they had been reading with their ”little Readers” for six weeks. They had selected books, planned objectives for each lesson, planned the lessons themselves, written questions they planned to ask, and had evaluated each lesson with their Little Readers. Ilene told me that she based this activity on research she had done on peer tutoring. She and the kindergarten teacher, currently a long-term substitute, had paired the children by primary languages. The children had met six or seven times to read together before the picnic. The classes were accompanied by two parents of students in Ilene's class; one of the school’s two resource counseling assistants; and Andrea, the kindergarten teacher. I audiotaped Ilene’s instructions to the students before we left the 191 school, then videotaped the field trip itself. My tape of the event reveals Ilene’s conversational tone as she gives the last instructions to students, who have lined up preparing to go meet their Little Readers: Ilene: While you are at school, Ms. P. is responsible, correct? Students: Yeah. Ilene: So you are now for either one or two, depending on how many Little Readers you have. You’re responsible for them for the next hour and a half. All right? Reminder: How do you walk down the street with them? Students: (Multiple responses) Ilene: Okay, good. you’re on the side by the street, and they're on the side by the house, or the apartment. ? Student: (Offers idea.) Ilene: Okay, good. You’re on the side by the street, and you’re holding their hand. Good. And why do we do that? Why is that important, ? Students: (Unintelligible response.) Ilene: They might walk into the street and get hit or get hurt. Or they might fall. There might be holes on the sidewalk, so we need to make sure that we’re walking real close to each other. Yes? Student: (Asks question.) Ilene: I’m not sure if we’re gonna pick them up or meet them. We’re just gonna walk and see what happens. ? Student: (Asks question.) Ilene: Okay, right. And watch for cars. Remember that most kindergartners are not as well behaved as you. We’ve learned that. So if your Little Reader is like running around and talking and Mrs. C. (the kindergarten teacher) is trying to give you directions, you have to make sure to listen. Student: (Offers idea.) 192 Ilene. Right. There’s one area where there's a lot of dogs, and don't ..... If your little reader gets scared, just pull him a little closer to you. Student: (Offers idea.) Ilene: It is very hot outside. But do you know what? It’s also pretty cool because there’s a breeze. So I think we'll be okay. There's a breeze, the wind. Interview with Ilene Ilene told me that her students had been doing "buddy reading" with the kindergarten class for six weeks, and had been to the kindergarten classroom at least once per week. Her students thought of the idea of the ”teddy bear picnic” with their Little Readers after reading a story called Iheleddy W. She agreed, but told them that they would have to take responsibility, just as real teachers do. They would have to pack all the materials for the lesson they would teach whenever they went to the kindergarten classroom. ”I tell them that if I’m a teacher, and my lesson uses toothpicks, and I don’t have toothpicks out there, I have to change the lesson. So if they forget the book, they have to change the lesson.” (This sort of ”natural” consequence struck me as more effective in teaching responsibility than weeks of Assertive Discipline.) Ilene said that one of the things her students wanted to do on this field trip was ”oral language and talking to the kids about what they see around them," as they would not have their books with them this time. Ilene told me that the fourth grade teachers from all the tracks at Garcia had recently held a self-financed retreat to Carmel. They rented a house and planned the whole next year’s curriculum for their grade level. It was a good experience for all the teachers, as they also had fun and did some team building. The first year of the school, she said, the teachers had not understood how important such activities would be. I asked Ilene how the teachers liked working without textbooks, as the only texts used at Garcia were the sixth grade 193 social studies texts. She said most of the teachers preferred working without texts, though they were using the kit-based hands-on science units and some other district curricula. A few teachers on staff would have liked to have texts in math, but most liked the way they taught at Garcia. Emulsions Did Ilene really believe that her students were ”Linguistically Gifted Persons"? How did the Garcia Plan affect her teaching? Ilene appeared to be the most advanced of the teachers I had observed in assimilating the school’s philosophy. When I saw the way Ilene interacted with students at the reading table, in her social studies lessons and on the field trip, I was impressed with the ease and naturalness of her conversation. This was not a teacher- centered classroom. Ilene had planned lessons based on student suggestions. She also made sure that her students wrote for real audiences and ”published" their books outside the classroom. When I observed the variety of activities in her classroom and the confidence with which students initiated conversation with her, I concluded that she was, in fact, the most student-centered teacher that I had observed at Garcia. One could not read the excerpts from the ”culture book” nor view the bulletin boards in her classroom without knowing that Ilene saw each child as a unique and capable individual. More than any other teacher, Ilene worked at helping students value one another. She was the Garcia Plan incarnate. The eagerness with which students asked her questions or offered comments during the preparation for the Little Readers’ picnic proved to be typical of their interaction with her in the classroom. Over the next months of my observation, I found Ilene consistently positive and eager to learn. Her students seemed truly empowered, responsible for their own learning, as the school’s vision stated. Spending a few days sharing a hotel room with her on a 194 trip to Mesa, AZ to investigate science strategies simply confirmed my opinion. Ilene was so proud to be a faculty member of Garcia that she wore her uniform and metal name tag even in Arizona at the professional meetings we attended. Since I have completed my observations, Ilene has finished her master's program at California State University, Fruitville. Her thesis research focused on the use of primary language tutors in the classroom. In addition to teaching at Garcia, Ilene is now an adjunct professor at a local college in Fruitville. According to Elena, Ilene sees training prospective teachers as part of her personal mission. W The only male teacher in Track D during my observations, Mike had been hired by Elena at her previous school as a long-term substitute when another teacher could not finish the school year. Perennially interested in new ideas and approaches, Mike was quick to apply when Elena moved to Garcia. His first year at Garcia was also his first full year to teach. He had quickly garnered a reputation among the other Garcia teachers for his quick wit, his natty professional wardrobe, and his skill as a teacher. Mike enjoyed his reputation, I observed. For a new teacher, he worked with remarkable confidence. C] Q . . Mike’s classroom was organized in semi-student—centered fashion. Student desks were arranged in groups of four to make tables. The teacher’s desk, however, sat at the front of the room, with a table and an overhead projector nearby. On the bulletin board was a poster of ”Ground Rules" — ”1. One person speaks at a time. 2. Raise your hand if you want a chance to speak. 195 3. Respect people’s privacy by saying ’I know someone who...’ instead of saying the person’s name. 4. It's okay to pass—you don’t have to speak unless you want to.” Unique in Track D, these rules appeared to have grown out of discussion in the sixth grade classroom during studies in Family Life Education, a district-required program for sixth graders. Mike smiled frequently at students and used humor in all his interaction with the class, though he maintained a ”forrnal” system of addressing students by their last names -e. g. ”Miss Chin, Mr. Reyes” — and he expected the same formality from them. During my observations, Mike's classroom decor emphasized science and math. At the front of the room hung student brainstorms of lists of items measurable with various metric measurements, i.e. ”Meters, Centimeters, Kilometers.” The pendulums (” swingers”) from the Full Options Science System unit called ”Variables” were draped over the white board at the front of the room. From the ceiling hung student-made posters on length, width, and volume, with candy wrappers and other items glued as illustrations. On the back soffit, portraits of famous scientists and dates of their contributions from the 16003 to 1987 marched around the perimeter of the room. The right side of the room was labeled "Writing Center," and displayed student reports on Egyptian costumes, complete with art work. To the left of the front white board hung a large yellow poster of brainstormed work, ” What We Know About Ancient Greece,” near another, "What We Know About Ancient Egypt.” Other student-made posters around the room focused on math and the individual student results of a recent candy sales campaign. Mike had used the campaign to teach math concepts while the students earned money for a class trip to Magic Mountain. Discipline was a matter of pride for Mike. He told me over lunch one day that he had the students elect peer ”line captains” who took care of the discipline in his class. Other teachers had been impressed with his system, he 196 said, and several had copied it. Mike coached the line captains, and they did line practice with their peers; the lines were a good system for use on field trips or moving through the halls of the building as a group. When an appropriate occasion arose, his line captains also offered quiet disciplinary tips to peers in class. Although this was a form of Assertive Discipline, Mike’s system was more student-centered than most I saw at Garcia. Students were making decisions about behavior and assisting is establishing class rules. ’ ' wi 1 In a pre-evaluation conference with Elena that I observed, Mike produced a highlighted copy of the school site plan. He had obviously prepared well for the meeting. He told Elena that he believed firmly in active learning and individual responsibility, and that he saw his own role as that of facilitator of learning, not director. He said one of his goals was to get more parent involvement in his classes. He believed in accelerating, not remediating the LEP students, he said. He believed in concentrating on a few things and making sure students did them well. Units he had coming up in class included a study of the Greeks. For that unit, he planned to divide his class into Olympic teams that would compete on Fridays in concrete academic experiences. Elena asked Mike about embedded process writing. He said he already had tribes in class, with a peer editor in every tribe. Elena reminded him that the district’s ITAS tests were coming up, and that the school needed to concentrate on language skills. Mike said that recently his class had been working on word attack skills in their study of mythology. He said he was most uncomfortable teaching math, but that his students surprisingly did very well. He felt that they were strong in math now. He requested that Elena arrange for a Hmong primary language tutor in addition to his assigned tutor, who was Lao. He had sent one student with a low level of 197 English proficiency to another sixth grade class, where the teacher had a Hmong tutor. He said that he believed behavior problems and academic problems were interrelated. His management style was to give additional responsibility and rewards to support both. Elena warned him that he might need anger management skills to deal with an African-American boy who might transfer into his class. Mike said that he used the Assertive Discipline program and maintained a card on each child in his class to document calls and notes home, both of the positive and negative variety. Elena suggested that he consider the Foxfire writing program for his students and that he standardize what he expected in student portfolios. Mike said he could use more prep time with other sixth grade teachers to see what they were doing. I was tremendously impressed that Mike pointed out so many correlations between his plans for his classroom and the School Site Plan. Mike appeared to be a teacher who believed in and supported all aspects of the Garcia Plan. My opinion did not change dramatically after observing Mike’s classes. But I did find Mike’s teaching to be more directive than I had expected after I visited with him and listened in on his conference with Elena. ....- - .._ ... .- ...... :-.._".;..._,-.. Mike used the district ”tribes" curriculum to teach Family Life Education, a required study for sixth graders. His sense of humor was obvious as he lead the discussion of a printed case study. ”N ow, let’s get to the meat and potatoes of this problem," he said, and the class responded with delighted laughter. The problem was, he said, that the class in the writeup had laughed at a student named Jack. ”Why had that happened?” he asked. Students raised their hands quickly and responded as he called on them. ”Excellent, excellent— all excellent answers!” he said. Mike asked the students how they could insure 198 that ridicule did not happen in their class. They brainstormed ideas, which he copied on the white board: ”1. One person speaks at a time. 2. If you want to be silly, go outside. 3. No put-downs. Instead, show appreciation. 4. We don’t talk about people specifically....7. No names, no gossip." (These ideas later appeared on a poster entitled ”Rules for Family Life Education") Then Mike called upon his ”records and accounting people” to record that they would be completing their Family Life lesson from 11:00 to 11:40 for the next 10 days. A resource teacher and the media specialist arrived shortly afterward to assist Mike with an art project—making puppets which the students would use to enact conflict resolution skits, part of the Family Life curriculum. Mike passed out materials by calling the ”tribal chairs” up to his desk. In each lesson I observed Mike teaching, he used cooperative groups with specific role assignments. On January 26, 1993, I observed Mike’s class finishing a discussion on the book W. Mike read aloud to the class. Students seemed mesmerized by the story and Mike’s interpretation of it. Mike then called on students to read passages. While a student read, Mike stood nearby, nodding encouragement. A portion of my tape of a science lesson (from the Full Option Science System unit on Variables) reads like this: Mike: All right. Who can raise their hand and refresh my memory, ’cause I’m old. What did we do in science yesterday? Who remembers? What did we do? One person remembers - two, three —boy, I need more than that. Four, five, six, seven—really, kind of six-and-a-half. All right. Help me out. What did we do yesterday? (Student response.) Mike: Okay. We glued little sticks onto popsickle sticks. What were we doing? What were we making? Mr. ? 199 (Student response.) Mike: We’re making flippers. We’re making flippers. Not the kind of flipper I wear on my feet if I go swimming, but sort of the same principle. But these flippers —what are we gonna, what do you think we’re gonna do with them? Mr. Flores? (Student response.) Mike: Okay. We put them in a base, and then we’re gonna hold them down with a depressor stick and put things into the base. Good. So yesterday we got this far. We constructed this, and this is our popsickle stick, and these are two little pieces that we glued on. This is going to be like our launchpad here, isn’t it? Okay? Good. Excellent. We have four different roles. What is one of them? Mr. Vang? Student: Getter? Mike: A getter. I’m sorry. I need to see raised hands, with closed mouths behind them. Mr. , thank you, sir. Student: Starter? Mike: Starter. Good. Ms. _? Student: Recorder. Mike: Recorder. And the last one, Ms. Lee? Student: Reporter. Mike: Reporter. Student: We got that. Student: No, we got recorder. Mike: We got recorder. Who can tell me, what is the role of the getter? Who remembers, what is the role of the getter? Student: (response) Mike. Okay. To get things the group needs, right? That’s what the getter does. We have one getter from each group. Why, why don’t we just have everybody 200 get up and do what they need to do? Mr. ? Student: Because there’d be a big mess? Mike: Too much traffic. Right? Traffic jam. Good. So the getter is the person who gets the materials that your group might need. All right. Who can tell me a little bit about what the starter does, please? Mr. ? (Mike continues in this vein until all roles are reviewed. About the time he is ready to begin the lesson in earnest, several students have to leave for orchestra rehearsal. He excuses them.) Mike. All right? Now, I’m gonna count down from three to zero, and at zero I want everybody’s attention. And I apologize for having the lesson interrupted, but we’re gonna get back on track. Ready, here we go. Three. I’m waiting for people at Table One now. Two. I’m still waiting for people at Table One. When I’m counting down, your eyes are on me, and all items are out of your hands. I'm waiting for this person now. Excuse me, I’m still waiting. I’m at two, and I’m still waiting in a sixth grade room. I’m at one now. And now I’m at zero. And I’m not going to do it again. Do we understand each other? Students: Yeah. Mike: We need to move on. This is the flipper base. I introduced it to you yesterday. We put the calibrated end into our base, and using things like corks and rubber stoppers, we’ll have our flip stick that we use. I’m using a flipper stick. But you have two sticks, okay, if one should break. You punch it down in, and flip it up, right? So what I would like now is for, let’s uh, we’re gonna have to redefine roles here. Let’s make sure that each group only has one getter. Each group has one starter. Each group has one recorder and each group has one reporter. So, if you have to redefine roles, I’m gonna give you thirty seconds right now so there will be absolutely no confusion. Go. (Students talk to one another.) Mike: Okay, four...three...two...one...zero. What I would like at this time is for the getter from each group to come and get a flipper base. I’m sorry. One rubber stOpper, and one cork. Okay? You return those items to your group. You may, may come up and get them. / / Let’s see. Who followed directions? Table One did a fantastic job. Thank you. Tables Four and Five, Six and Seven, you gotta come up. I’m going to give you the next four or five minutes to explore your flipper system. But before I do, I need to give you a word of caution. Any unauthorized flipping of items other than the cork or the rubber stopper, which you have received for the sole purpose of flipping only, will constitute your having your whole system taken away, and as a result, you will not be able to 201 continue on with the experiment. You understand? Students: Yeah. Mike: Okay. The only two items that you may be flipping are your cork and your rubber stopper. I would like the starter to see that everybody gets a turn, at the table everybody gets a turn to operate the system. Everybody takes a turn. All right? You’ve got five minutes to explore your system. You may begin. (The lesson continues for most of the rest of the next hour. Students experiment with flipping different objects, then make observations in response to Mike’s questions.) Mike: When you were flipping corks and rubber stoppers, did they always fly the same distance? Mr. Vang? Student: No. Mike: They didn't always fly the same distance? Okay. What do you suppose the reason for the different outcomes could have been? Ms. Chin? Student: (Responds) Mike: Okay. One’s heavy and one’s light. We call that what? Students: Weight. Mike: Weight. Weight could have been the reason. All right. What could have been another reason? Student: The size. Mike: Could you be a little bit more specific? When you say size, what do you mean? (Student responds.) Mike: Okay. One is bigger in terms of size. (As the lesson continued, Mike made a list of the students’ reasons on the white board. Then he introduced two new variables, using that term. He distributed aluminum foil for students to use in making large and small balls to flip. They did so. Then he introduced the concept of measuring the distance the different objects go, after the students talked together to predict the distance they would fly. Then the students used an angle brace to change the angle of the flipper to 202 see how that affected the distance. By the end of the lesson, the groups argued enthusiastically that each had constructed a superior flipper systems. Mike managed that discussion. Then he promised that students would address the issue of inconsistent variables in tomorrow’s lesson. He collected the materials using group roles.) Si d e in On January 26, 1993, Mike participated in a sixth grade teacher meeting I observed. Three of the four teachers were present. They talked for quite a while about their concerns regarding their students’ experience next year at Redwood Middle School. They decided to arrange for their classes to visit Redwood and be paired with eighth graders for a day. Mike volunteered to make the arrangements. The teachers would go along on the visit, and then discuss the situation with their students to get them prepared. The Garcia teachers knew that Redwood was a traditional school, with a Hmong wing, a Cambodian wing, and a Spanish wing. They hoped that the new area superintendent would force change in Redwood’s policies. Another topic of discussion was an upcoming sixth grade trip to a state park. The date for the trip had been not yet been confirmed, but it could take place in June or July; the cost would be $9.50 per person. The trip would be an all day event. Mike was also working on a four day camping trip which would cost $30 per person and would require fund-raising; the bus and driver would be extra. The group also discussed a trip for their classes to the Hearst castle. Thursday, August 5 would be sixth grade graduation. The teachers divided duties for that event. B'EI . 'lll'l Mike and I had a short conversation at the end of the day on June 17, 1993. Mike told me that he loved Garcia School, but that he was considering transferring within the Fruitville Unified system. He said that he thought it was 203 time to ”spread the Garcia Vision” to other schools. One he’d heard of was just thinking of going year-round. The idea of helping start such a program appealed to him. (I checked with Elena in 1996 and learned that Mike has not left Garcia. She said that he has talked about leaving on several occasions, but always has decided not to go. She said he told her that he couldn’t find a comparable opportunity; once he looks at other places more closely, they don’t compare to Garcia.) Conclusions Did Mike buy into the school’s vision of students as ”Linguistically Gifted Persons”? What assumptions did he illustrate with classroom demeanor and out-of-class interviews and meetings? Mike is a charismatic teacher who succeeds even when he lectures, which he does somewhat more regularly than he believes. If other young teachers communicated a lack of confidence, Mike communicated the opposite. As professionally dressed as though he had stepped from the pages of QQ, Mike exuded confidence. While he defined himself to Elena as ”facilitative,” and he was certainly employing cooperative groups, he used student-centered approaches in a controlled and somewhat directive atmosphere. His cooperative groups had carefully assigned roles, and students had only so many minutes, religiously measured, on any task. Yet Mike was unfailingly positive and supportive of his students. His students, in turn, were attentive and well behaved even when working with the flippers, an exercise which had potential for creating chaos. I never saw a student defy Mike or linger long off-task. Mike obviously enjoyed his students, and the feeling was mutual. His exaggerated terms of respect communicated a real message —these were People capable of adult behavior and fine performance. The energy he put into 204 fund-raising and arranging for class trips showed that he believed these students deserved opportunities often reserved for their more affluent peers. He was also concerned about what would happen when they ” graduated” and moved on to Redwood Middle School. I hope that the self-esteem he fostered kept students going if they encountered a less nurturing atmosphere. For all his good humor, charm and dedication, however, Mike was squarely in control in his classroom. I suspected that his would always remain the dominant role, and that his classroom would remain teacher-centered. Still, his delightful classroom atmosphere indicated that he would continue to manage his teaching with style, grace, and respect for his students. He had obvious faith in the ability of students to learn and to discipline themselves under his leadership and coaching. His line captain system and clear roles for group work reflected his belief that ”Linguistically Gifted Persons” should take responsibility for their own learning, just as the school’s vision stated. Although Mike’s classroom might not be pictured beside the definition of ”student- centered,” his students were truly engaged in active leaming. I’m not sure that I could describe Mike as ”in transition,” because I believe he had worked out a compromise with the school vision that would remain in place. Still, his planning solidly supported the school’s nondeficit description of students, and I believe that he contributed mightily to student success. C I . E I 5' I l D I l The six teachers discussed above were caught up in Phase II, early implementation (Fullan, 47), of a mammoth fundamental change process (Cuban, 3) that would take many years beyond my observations to complete. Perhaps because they were attempting such a complex project, they were making good early progress (Fullan, 71). Without question, they had begun a process that 205 would permanently alter their classroom practices. The goals for the school, all of which stemmed from a determination to reject deficit thinking, described an ideal that would be challenging to meet. But the teachers had made the most difficult step— they had established firm conscious beliefs that these children were in no way deficient. The Garcia Plan said that teachers would be working in triad teams; I observed student and teacher interaction that indicated such planning was on course. Students were receiving cross-age tutoring, as the vision said they would. They were clearly forming bonds with teachers, as was the purpose of having teachers follow them for two years. Content areas of emphasis—language, hands-on science , mathematics and social studies — appeared to be receiving the bulk of teacher and student attention. To the extent that it was installed and operational during my observations, technology facilitated teaching, and enabled the school to uphold its responsibilities as a technology model school. The school day had been extended an hour beyond the norm, and productive activities, i.e. Cannen’s Spanish class and triad study time, were in place during that period, just as the vision described. Teachers and students were wearing uniforms and enjoying the esprit de corps they provided. Most importantly for the staff’s basic premise, instruction was ongoing in all the languages of the school community. Every teacher I observed was making use of primary language tutors and was validating the languages and cultures of the students at Garcia. Classroom practices appeared (to greater or lesser degree) to be encouraging students’ responsibility for their own learning. Every classroom was arranged to facilitate student-centered approaches to instruction, although some arrangements were more conducive to movement and ease of group work than others. Each teacher was using a variety 0f activities, many of which called for experiential work in cooperative groups. One clear indicator of change in process was that teachers were heavily invested 206 in the meaning of the changes they had undertaken. Their conversations both inside and outside class supported their inservice training and the school vision. As the self-financed fourth grade teachers retreat, the grade level meetings and even lunchtime conversations illustrated, teachers sought opportunities to interact with one another to delve deeper into the meaning of what they were learning. Areas in which I saw less alignment with the goals of the school were in true decision-making by students, which I observed overtly only in Ilene’s classroom, in avoidance of teacher-centered approaches to instruction, and in any genuine reflection about "knowledge, power, voice, and position,” such as Brunner recommends (1994, 48). Certainly, they had done no questioning of ”power and authority” (51), and saw no threat in corporate or university partnerships, even after two Senate Bill 1274 grant applications filled with corporate compensation strategies failed. Several teachers expressed concern about working with Redwood Middle School and the remainder of the schools of Fruitville Unified; they were aware that a more cohesive relationship might serve their goals better. Every teacher I observed was still using classic Initiation-Response-Evaluation patterns in dialogue with students, and every teacher spoke far more than did their students in class. Students did get more opportunity to talk with one another than they would have had in more traditional classrooms, because cooperative work was pervasive, both within classrooms and within triad groups. But I witnessed few students initiating genuine conversation with teachers in classrooms, as research says is beneficial for the development of true communicative competence. And I saw a number of inStances of missed opportunities when teachers could have encouraged student thinking." Nevertheless, I had the sense that these teachers were moving in the direction of greater true empowerment of students through their learning and 207 interaction. For example, Mike’s line captain idea had caught on with other teachers. Ilene and Andrea were encouraging students to plan and evaluate lessons for kindergartners. Juana, Tammi and Paula were all concerned about discovering what their students already knew about a topic and moving their learning from that point. Carmen, through the use of her Diglot-Weave input, validated the language that students brought to school. Paula demonstrated that she thought about her students’ in- and out-of-class behavior and the reasons for it, and she did what she could to be supportive of students and their families as they faced a variety of challenges. All the teachers I observed had achieved a ”hybrid” of teacher- and student—centered instruction, as was evident in their room arrangements, their variety of activities, their commitment to group processes, and, occasionally, in their classroom discourse. Their concern about the program at Redwood Middle School indicated the depth of their commitment to their students and to the values inherent in the Garcia program, though it also indicated their competitive rather than collaborative view of other schools in the system. My observations convinced me that each teacher I have discussed believed fully that Garcia students were, indeed, Linguistically Gifted Persons. Each believed strongly in the tenets of the Garcia Plan, built on the foundation of the positive linguistic model the school espoused. Each teacher wanted teaching practice to reflect these beliefs. Some teachers were further along than others at achieving that reflection. Change is messy indeed. But their commitment to call students Linguistically Gifted indicated much more than a language change. These peOple had experienced a change in attitude. As Rexford Brown (1991) said so pointedly, these teachers were not speaking ”’talkinbout;”’ they were " sharing a language of learning” (234-35). Learning means, as experienced practitioner Routrnan says, ”we are bound to bungle it at the start” (4). CHAPTER VI TRIANGULATION: OTHER MEASURES OF SUCCESS OF THE CHANGE PROCESS AT GARCIA ELEMENTARY Classroom observation is one lens through which to examine a schoolwide change project. Other productive lenses include 1) staff and 2) parent participation and satisfaction; 3) reports of outside evaluators re: staff morale, commitment and concerns; 4) self-reporting by the staff (as codified in the school’s annual report and parent newsletters) re: attendance and student achievement; 6) awards; and 7) the faculty’s plan for the future. I will also examine an eighth factor, the unanticipated consequences of success. I . 'SEES'E' 'llS'E On May 7, 19921 had a lunchtime conversation with Tammi, the second grade teacher in Track D, and Deborah, her counterpart from another track. Both told me of the frustrations that came with school startup in a brand new building when not all the furniture had been assembled and Day One of classes loomed. They had come to the school at night, drafting family members and bringing their tools, and had assembled the furniture. ”From the beginning, we decided we would do what it takes here. We have a vision, and the kids come first, ” said Deborah. Both shared with me their concerns about the professional jealousy of other teachers in the district. One had heard from friends that Garcia teachers ”had an attitude” that they were better than others, and that attitude showed when they wore their uniforms to district meetings. 208 209 One admitted that colleagues from outside the school had made fun of her at a district ”institute day." ”’What do you people at Garcia think you are? ”’someone had asked her. ”We think we’re a team," she had answered. "They just don’t understand our commitment,” said Tammi. Both teachers told me they had heard about the school through ” the grapevine” before they had attended one of Elena’s orientations and invitations to apply. They had also heard that Elena was a ”really tough” administrator. But they decided to take a chance on the school based on what they were hearing about her plans for the program. They said they were glad they had done so. ”I’m one of the few people I know who can honestly say I ream/Jove my job,” said Tammi. ”I have friends in other (school) buildings who are just putting in time.” I asked both teachers if they felt that Elena had had too much of the vision planned in advance, before staff members were on board to continue the planning. No, they had replied. ”We wouldn’t have wanted to come if she hadn’t. Besides, we all agreed —and it’s usually so hard to get a staff to agree on anything,” said Tammi. She believed it helped to know Elena’s vision "up front.” ”Morale is so high here," added Deborah. ”Sometimes, when I’m teaching and doing staff development and creating a video for Community Cablevision, I think I can’t do one more thing—but that moment passes. I love it here.” Mrs. Low, Garcia media specialist, was the only certified media Specialist in the Fruitville Unified system. She had been in charge of all the district’s libraries when budget cuts forced her retirement. She had come out of retirement at Elena’s invitation and had agreed to work at Garcia for a fraction of her original salary. She did so because she believed in the Garcia vision, she told 210 me on April 14, 1993. Still, the experience had had its frustrations. The biggest had been finding money to buy needed materials to stock a media center from scratch. The new collection of books was still so small, despite several corporate contributions, that she had been forced to deny (as yet) teacher requests to circulate the books. Mrs. Low had done a survey through the American Library Association. The average school district in the United States spends $17 per child on media materials, she said. Fruitville Unified had committed only $5.80 per secondary student and $1.80 per elementary school child. She was planning a trip to the state legislature to protest the elimination of certified media specialists from all California districts. Northern California districts were already replacing media specialists with parents, she said. She would not quit working as long as Elena wanted her at Garcia, and she would not quit fighting for a fine library there. The students and teachers at Garcia were just too important to her. Trisha T. had been the school secretary at Garcia from the outset, and she had her finger on the pulse of the school. On May 6, 1992, she visited with me about school enrollment. At that time the LEP breakdown was 62.5%, she said. She also gave me a lesson on Southeast Asian names. Short names were often Cambodian, she said, and gave me several examples: An, Va Lee, Cha, Tin. Hmong names were also short, and there were many children with the same last names. She showed me Vang, Fang, Yang and Lor. Longer names, like Chan Born, were Lao. Mien last names started with Sua. Nguyen was Vietnamese and Sangha and Sandip were Indian children who spoke Punjabi. Trisha told me she had worked in other buildings, but especially enjoyed the atmosphere and the challenges at Garcia. Andrea C. was a long-term substitute at Garcia, working in the kindergarten room. After I ended my observation period, she was hired to fill What became, eventually, a kindergarten vacancy. She had started at Garcia in 211 the midst of a school year, and she was ”really struggling to learn.” She was the second substitute in the classroom, and after their winter break, ” the kids were loose,” she said. She’d had a challenge explaining to her Hmong primary language tutor that she wanted him to speak Hmong to the children. He was so gracious, she said, and he had not wanted to ”offend” her. Andrea had some experience being a minority, as she said she was half Armenian and had lived and taught in Africa, so she had empathy for language learners. She had had some frustration learning the vision of Garcia, as her mentor teacher was so busy. She said she wished there were a professional library on site stocked with pertinent readings. She could foresee a need for a new employee orientation program as time went on, as there was bound to be tumover. Still, she said that she was eager to learn and respected the vision of the new school. B S'E' .13. My first official interview of this research concerned parent satisfaction. On June 7, 1991, I interviewed Elena after she had held the first major parent meeting to launch the new school. She had trained interpreters and run four parent meetings simultaneously (Hmong, Khmer, Spanish and English), a practice she continued as long as I conducted my research. The decision topic of the evening was uniforms. She had had children model uniform choices. All 23 teachers who had been hired so far were present, as were two university professors. The parents had amazed her by reaching consensus by 8:30 p.m.: the new uniform would be Blackwatch plaid, navy and white. Three parents in the English-speaking group had voiced the strongest opinions. The Hmong parent group had reached a decision quickly. On April 12, 1993, I observed a Cambodian New Year celebration and assembly put on by parents at Garcia. Grades four, five and six attended the 212 assembly. Elena wore a traditional Cambodian dress made for her as a gift by the parent group. The celebration included traditional music played by a band of five fathers of Garcia students, followed by a cultural talk from a guest speaker who greeted us with ”Welcome to the Rooster Year!” and invited us to a three day celebration at the Buddhist temple nearby. She explained many of the customs and beliefs surrounding the new year’s celebration. At the end of her talk, children did two traditional dances. Then a special Cambodian meal catered by the parent group honored the teachers. Following the meal, I interviewed Mr. Neth, one of the parents. He told me that he had three children at Garcia, in first, second and fifth grades, and that he was very impressed with the program at the school. He had another child in sixth grade in a different Fruitville elementary school, so he had a chance to compare. There was no New Year’s celebration at the other school, he said, as his was the only Cambodian family with children there. At Garcia, his children could study Khmer after school, and that was important to him. He liked the uniforms and the emphasis on keeping the Cambodian language. He wanted his children to be able to write to their relatives in Cambodia. He was a student at Fruitville community college, studying to be a registered nurse. He had been a teacher in Cambodia, but about 1970, all teachers were forced to become soldiers, he said. He was a medic in the refugee camps, and became attracted to medicine as a career. He seemed pleased to meet me and very glad to talk about the school. He had learned to say ”Texas” (my home state) in his English class in college, and enjoyed practicing that word. ”I hope to meet you again,” he said as we parted. ”The world is round, and I hope to meet everyone twice.” On June 17, 1993 I interviewed Mrs. Juarez, mother of Jose, a fourth grader in Ilene’s class, and a daughter in another class. She went along as a chaperone on the Little Readers’ picnic. Mrs. Juarez told me she loved the school 213 uniforms, as they saved her money and helped curb gang influences. At other schools, ”everybody was always comparing who’s got the best tennis shoes or who’s got the best shirt..., and this way, they gotta wear just the blue and white, and the black shoes, so it’s not really a choice.” She said she believed the uniforms helped prevent violence. Mrs. Juarez also appreciated the school’s emphasis on Spanish, as she wanted her children to be bilingual. Her daughter’s teacher spoke Spanish in class on occasion, and her daughter was really ”picking it up,” she said. When Mrs. Juarez had visited her daughter’s class, the teacher was doing the math lesson in Spanish. Before the children had transferred to Garcia, they had seemed reluctant to speak Spanish. Now, her daughter would come home and say, ”Mom, how do you say this in Spanish?” Through an interpreter, I visited with two Cambodian fathers on the Garcia School Site Committee. They told me they liked the school because there was no discrimination there. They also liked the uniforms because they reminded them of the school uniforms in Cambodia. They appreciated the after— school language and culture classes. Each father had assisted with serving food at the Cambodian New Year’s celebration at Garcia. One father told me he liked Garcia much better than the last school his children attended because there was an interpreter at the school, someone with whom he could speak when he needed to come to the building. The other said that he liked having parent meetings held in Khmer, as many parents did not speak English. Both fathers were volunteering their time to help in the Cambodian school held in the portable buildings behind Garcia on Thursdays. According to the school annual report for November 1992, over 80% of the school’s parents had attended monthly parent meetings conducted simultaneously in Hmong, Khmer, Spanish and English. Sample topics included 214 ”We Care About Your Child’s Safety,” ”Farnily Math,” ”Parents and Teachers Working Together,” and ”Self-Esteem — an Essential Element to Student Learning." (See Appendix F for a sample parent meeting schedule for early spring, 1992.) {-u, o a ' o 1.. . - LV‘ sisflv1u_or I: ‘1! .- " An evaluation of the Garcia staff morale, commitment and concerns was conducted by California State professors in a two-stage survey done in June and July 1992. The first survey proposed issues for evaluation and invited staff members to respond if they had other issues to add. Twelve of the 36 staff members responded. The second survey was distributed to all teachers, including those off track, and to all administrators. Thirty-two surveys were returned by the deadline. Twenty-one respondents were teachers, two were administrators, three were ”other" and six did not indicate their assignments. Respondents rated each issue on the evaluation survey on three scales: 1) ”effectiveness of the implementation of the educational effort;” 2) ”the importance it had to instruction;” and 3) ” the importance it had to the school climate or morale” (Benniga and Kuehn, 1992, 3). These results were presented at a staff meeting on July 28, 1992, after which the participants grouped the issues into four broad categories (School Mission / Focus; Curricular Materials; Organization / Programs; School Climate / Needs Issues), selected a category to work on and divided into work groups to address the issues. Following that discussion, Elena decided to conduct another survey of the faculty to determine their commitment to the Garcia mission. Twenty-eight teachers responded to Elena’s survey about their commitment to the school’s mission. Their responses were reported by Benniga and Kuehn, as follows in Table 1: 215 Table 1 Reexamination of Eondamental Principles Y_E5 N O 1. Development of a full bilingual program 28 0 2. Gradual implementation of the Accelerated 28 0 Learning Philosophy 3. Continuation of basic principles: development of 28 0 interdependence, responsibility for own learning, character 4. Commitment to drop-out prevention by tracking 26 2 graduates of Garcia through high school 5. Extended education for all students through 28 0 interdependence grouping 6. Continued implementation of dress code (uniforms) 27 1 7. Professional development (in depth) (LDS 1991-92; 27 1 Science 1992-93; History / social studies 1993-94) 8. Develop parents as learners, supporters, teachers, 28 0 leaders and decision makers. Garcia as a learning center 9. Technological competence among staff, students, 28 0 and parents 10. Develop a spirit of collaboration among all aspects 28 0 of the community (school, district, higher ed., government, business) General Comments: ° I want to be one of the players of your ” game plan.” I stepped into this position at Garcia fully aware and accepting to be part of the dream. 216 Table 1 (cont’d). ° Elena has done an outstanding job this year and should be commended for her hard work. 0 I left a great teaching position to come here to Garcia because I truly believe in the vision defined by these 10 elements. We have a chance here to really make a positive educational impact. ° Keep working, Elena. The students are worth the fight. (Benniga, Kuehn, 1992, Appendix) 217 Benniga and Kuehn summarized their findings with these remarks: Garcia is clearly a place where enthusiasm and commitment areabundant. The teachers and administrators care deeply and passionately about what they are doing and for this reason chose to do the difficult task of self-study and evaluation for improvement. The administration responded to the issues raised even before the group’s recommendations had been formulated and agreed upon. While such responsiveness is a strength, the usefulness of the recommendations and the hours of thoughtful discussion that went into them became less valuable to teachers since the decisions regarding changes in some cases were made before the recommendations were presented and finalized. In the case of two issues, book circulation and visitation, the actions of one group effectively removed these from group discussion or from the recommendation process. Overall, however, the process lead to valuable discussions, expression of positions, articulation of problems, and creative solutions. Unquestionably this was a positive process which contributed to teacher morale, better communication, and a clearer sense of site-based management with staff working together to solve problems. (12) r -{'Hun°: In: ' o. i a-“ -o. {:00 40. -_ ‘l k: r ‘1' In November 1992, the Garcia staff published its annual report of the first year’s progress. The principal’s message read: Being the principal of an elementary school is often a lonely job. Not so at this school! Everywhere I go, I am accompanied by the dreams and ambitions of the man for whom this school was named, Armando Garcia. It is Armando who guides me as we create a school to meet the needs of our linguistically gifted students, their families and the community. "The real power of being bilingual is being bilingually literate.” This philosophy is his gift to me and my staff. Speaking two languages is a linguistic gift. Everyone has a heritage of which to be proud. At Garcia we are truly a community , of lifelong learners from many cultures, working and learning together. It is through the support of all of our stakeholders that we are coming to realize the power of this man’s dreams. The school community had developed a mission statement: ”The Garcia Vision: Empowering ourselves to become lifelong learners and 218 explorers,” reported Elena. Cost of providing an annual regular and special education program in Fruitville Unified came to $4,199 per pupil, compared to a US average of $5,811 and a state average of $5,405. Garcia received federal Chapter I, LEP And state School Improvement Program funds during the 1991-92 school year. Garcia ”differs from most categorically funded schools in Fruitville Unified in that it spends only 50% of its funds on personnel. The other 50% were used directly for students and for the professional development of teachers and staf ” (2, annual report). The school site housed 28 classrooms, a media center, including the library, resource lab, speech and resource specialists’ offices and a computer room. A multipurpose room was both cafeteria and on-site kitchen. ”School facilities are maintained clean and graffiti free” (3), no small accomplishment in a city where gangs marked everything with graffiti. Among the staff listed in the annual report were two Bilingual Resource Counselors to assist Hmong and Khmer students and their families. Through the agreement with California State University, Fruitville, 45 college students had worked on campus as tutors. Student attendance had been 96.7% during the first year, one of the highest attendance rates of Fruitville elementary schools. (By June of 1993, Garcia had achieved more than a 99% attendance rate— the highest in the district. While the first year’s attendance could have been enthusiasm for a new program, the aforementioned Hawthorne effect, continued high attendance seemed to be a real indicator of the lasting enthusiasm of the students and parents for this school.) The annual report statement about textbooks was: With so many limited English speaking students at Garcia, we believe that learning must be activity-centered, emphasizing the use of real objects. The school did not purchase any basal textbooks except for intermediate social studies. The annual textbook allocation for Garcia was spent on literature books that correlate to 219 the study of social studies and science. Additional funds were spent on hands-on science and math materials / manipulatives (5). The professional development agreement with the Fruitville campus of California State University was listed as ” unique in the entire State of California” (6). According to Elena’s parent newsletter for June 1993, Garcia had the following statistics: In FUSD Garcia ranks #1 in % AFDC (82%), #1 in number of families in free / reduced lunch (94%), and #4 in number of LEP (LGP-Linguistically Gifted Persons to us). We may be the poorest economically in FUSD, but take a look at our intellectual wealth! In academic achievement, Year #1 yielded the following results: Garcia doubled the district’s achievement gains in math, surpassed the district in reading, and fell below the district in language (Individual Test of Academic Achievement or ITAS, where the district expectation was a gain of 2 N CE or normal curve equivalents). But our goal is clear—to surpass the district in all subjects by 1994-95, the state by 1997-98, and the nation, by the year 2,000. Attendance? At the very t0p, #1 in district, best attendance of its 90 schools. Parent Satisfaction? 50% of Garcia Parents gave Garcia an ”A;” as compared to 36% of FUSD parents who gave FUSD an ”A”; 30% of Garcia parents gave Garcia a ”B" as compared to 40% FUSD parents who gave FUSD a ”B”. Survey return rate? FUSD— 60%...Garcia 72%. (June 1993, 1) (See Appendix K for Excerpts from other Parent Newsletters.) Amrds The staff called Year Two of Garcia’s existence "The Year of Awards.” In October 1992, Lamar Alexander, then US Secretary of Education, chose to visit Garcia to bestow the ”A+ for Breaking the Mold Award.” In April 1993, the school was named one of the 177 best schools in America by Redbook Magazine. In the third year, the US Department of Education honored Garcia by 220 including its description along those of 13 other schools in An Idea Book for Educators: Implementing ihoolwide Projects, edited by Ellen M. Pechman and Leila Fiester of Policy Studies Associates, Inc. in Washington, DC. On the Acknowledgments page, they said: ”Together, the schools that contributed to this volume reflect the possibilities for improving schools for the most disadvantaged children- possibilities that are embedded in the 1994 authorization of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.” The description of Garcia appears on pages 42 - 46 of that volume. Tr: -. ’ -_.o '_ r '_'9, 11' on- ,‘°-”7 Since California Senate Bill 1274 grant funds appeared to be available at the end of Garcia’s first full year of operation, the staff decided to reapply for the grant. Once again, the school was deemed too new; besides, the second restructuring plan had a ”new wrinkle” in teacher compensation that raised the ire of the Fruitville Teachers Association and the eyebrows of other district educators who heard the plan presented to the board of education. The school wanted to reward all teachers and noncertificated staff who signed the Garcia Vision pledge and helped the school meet its goals: The SB 1274 grant funds will be used to develop an incentive program for all certificated staff and instructional classified staff. The incentive will be for those instructional staff who sign the Garcia Vision pledge. This declaration will be written annually and describe exactly what process outcomes are to be achieved in the coming school year. The incentives will be based on achieving key process indicators that demonstrate restructuring is continuing and succeeding. The indicators will be developed by the staff during 1992-93. An outside evaluation team will decide if we have met all our annual goals. The incentives will be awarded to either everyone involved, or no one at all. This will motivate all of us to be actively involved in the change process, and to help one another reach our goals. The incentives will be available beginning 1992-93. 221 The incentives will be $2,000.00 per teacher per year, and $500.00 per classified staff per year. If we do not achieve our goals, the money will be returned to the state. In addition, we will have a conference travel fund of $10,000 per year to send teachers to restructuring conferences and workshops. (SB 1274 proposal, 1992- 97, 7) All other statements in the proposal extended and made more specific the components of the staff’s original SB 1274 proposal. I was present at the school board meeting on May 6, 1992 when a team of teachers from Garcia presented the grant proposal to the board, asking for their endorsement. The lead presenter reiterated the goals of the school, then explained the reason for the unusual allocation of monies proposed. She also asked that the district waive the ITAS test for first graders, as their language proficiency did not allow for good measurement of their learning; that the district waive the kindergarten assessment for the same reason; and that the district allow the school to develop an alternate assessment instrument for Linguistically Gifted Persons. Because parents wanted more information than could be provided on the district report card, the school requested permission to develop their own report card with reporting in the areas of communication, interpersonal skills and critical thinking. She also asked for the district’s support for staff from Garcia to visit other schools outside the district. The school requested permission to change their staffing from two resource teachers to two teachers on Special assignment, to add goal setting to an annual performance review, and to purchase laptop computers for student use, realizing that that might require different maintenance procedures than the district normally provided. The school proposed a nutrition break in mid-morning for students, and that they offer intercession courses, which would boost Average Daily Attendance and bring dollars into the district’s general fund. The school proposed hiring 222 someone to run the extended day program so that it could be expanded to a two- hour program beyond the regular school day. The school proposed adding Reading Recovery, which they had already received permission from Marie Clay to offer at the second grade level instead of the first, as that was when their students were able to move from oral language to literacy. Final requests included more local control over selection of mentor teachers, and a waiver from the format of the district’s standard school site plan. School board members’ questions revolved around budget issues, growth of the school and potential overcrowding. One school board member said, ”Thank you, I think this (proposal) is brilliant." Another followed Elena into the hall at a break and asked if she had understood correctly that the school wanted to use funds to support primary language instruction. Wasn’t the object to teach students English? In the end, the grant proposal was not funded, and Elena speculated that the reason for its lack of success was the concept of use of grant monies for incentive pay, an idea wholeheartedly supported by the school’s corporate partners. Wexler (1987) would no doubt have judged the compensation suggestions an indicator of the school's ”corporatization” (74) by business partners. Others might say that while appearing to reward teachers and noncertificated staff of Garcia for hard work toward worthy goals, the plan also set the school at odds with fellow schools in the district, whose staffs would not have such opportunities. Wexler and other social historians see in such corporate influence a social movement toward institutional reorganization of education. Both tendencies within the rightward movement, social-integration and market, cultural restoration and reassertion of capital, are represented in the actions of these movements. There appears 223 almost to be a division of labor: attack common culture on the one hand; undercut and dismantle organizational finances and forms on the other. Specifically, this means an attack on school curricula and budgets (67). Despite the potentially far-reaching implications of the school’s business partnerships, I never saw Garcia teachers or administrators express concern or suspicion about the agendas of their corporate partners, nor did teachers or administrators acknowledge the role budgetary ideas such as those in the grant application might play in the political power struggles within the school district. Teachers seemed instead to view the grant applications as a way to solidify the school’s vision; they seemed relatively unconcerned about whether they received grant money. Never did I hear teachers express fears about internal competition for wages. They viewed themselves as a team working to accomplish important goals for students too often provided a second- rate education. Granted, these teachers did no deep reflection about their "knowledge, power, voice, and position," as Brunner (1994, 48) suggests they should to be truly empowered themselves. But experience tells me that during a school year, such reflection occurs mainly in planned moments, in seminars or other learning experiences, when a group meets regularly to read and discuss a text. The Garcia teachers were reflecting on the issues raised in their inservice training. Had they been studying Wexler instead of second language acquisition and culture, they might have reflected on the influence of their partners. Consumed with starting the new school and living up to the Garcia philosophy, they had energy only for gratitude for help from those they saw as allies. 224 Unintended Consequences of Suceess Two factors that the forward-thinking principal and the enthusiastic staff of Garcia had not predicted continued to plague them during their second year of operation. Both resulted from the attention the school received from the press and from dignitaries outside the district, people like corporate CEOs and Lamar Alexander. The first was visitors. So many visitors requested admission to the school that Elena finally proclaimed Wednesdays visitation days. Students were trained as official greeters in all classes, and teachers and staff learned to carry on as usual despite a shifting crowd of spectators. Still, staff enthusiasm for visitors wore thin after a while. Visitation days were one of the issues that needed to be addressed as a concern during the Garcia’s staff’s self-evaluation process. The other issue had already cropped up in teachers’ remarks in my interviews. Professional jealousy of Garcia staff from other teachers and administrators soon became evident. Elena encountered the problem when other principals objected to her precedent-setting allocation of school funds. Her own evaluator, an area superintendent, appeared to suffer from the same professional jealousy. She repeatedly blocked Elena’s plans for Garcia. In Elena’s evaluation, she awarded a low score, ironically, for staff development, and complained that Elena’s stream of visitors did not include enough Fruitville Unified personnel. Further career disappointments followed for Elena, including having an appointment to design a K-12 ”Schools of the Future” initiative based on the Garcia Plan offered, then withdrawn several days later because, she was told, she had a "people problem.” According to a district administrator, other administrators were so jealous of the acclaim that Garcia had received that they would not be led by Elena. 225 In the end, sadly, Elena became so frustrated that she left the district for a principalship elsewhere. The school has continued to thrive, however, and many of its ideas have caught on across Fruitville. An obvious one is uniforms, now in evidence in many Fruitville schools. Another, more significant for the curriculum, is the use of primary language tutors. In light of the school board member’s reaction when Garcia’s grant was presented, it is ironic that primary language tutors are now required by the district for schools with high incidence of LEP students. Elena’s vision for Garcia Elementary School was the starting point for staff unity. But it was not the end, nor did Elena intend for it to be. She told me once that she knew her strength was more in designing a vision than in carrying it out over the long haul. I know that she studied Senge’s writings for his take on the ”new work” of leaders - to create collaborative environments and empower others. In his article ”Visions That Blind” (1992), Michael Fullan warned that ”high-powered, charismatic” (19) principals can manipulate staffs to achieve only the leader’s goals. When principals leave, the schools they leave may decline. In her short time at Garcia, however, Elena succeeded in empowering her staff. They would have appreciated having her leadership longer, as will be evident from the interviews in my epilogue, but the vision for Garcia was theirs because she had engaged in exactly the practices Fullan recommends. She and the staff had built the culture of the school together. Through her agreement with the university, she had promoted the professional growth of her staff, and she had made her own values clear. By means of grade level and track teacher meetings, she had encouraged staff collaboration. If Fullan were judging Elena’s leadership, he would probably fault her, though, for the connections she forged or failed to forge with ” the wider environment” (20). While Elena’s relationships with corporations, the university 226 and the community outside the district appeared positive, her relationships within the district appeared to be strained. By listening more to her corporate partners than her administrative colleagues, she generated a political power struggle. Ultimately, she lost the battle. An observer with a long view might have predicted her political problems. Her personal mission stated boldly that she sought acclaim for her school — a fine goal when the acclaim is earned, but a goal that could also be judged as competitive with other Fruitville schools. Her phrasing of school accomplishments in parent newsletters and the annual report compared Garcia very favorably to the rest of the district. The uniforms and nametags worn by Garcia staff to district and out-of—district events symbolized a strong team spirit. But district employees not on the Garcia team could easily get their noses out of joint as they observed those uniforms, as they called even more attention to Garcia personnel. An observer could conclude that the principal and her staff were engaged in self-promotional activities. Judgment of that sort surely contributed to the jealousy of other district administrators and teachers toward a transformational leader (ERIC Digest, 1992, 1) who truly empowered her staff. WW Secondary data collection confirmed my earlier conclusions. The establishment of Garcia Elementary was a huge fundamental change project, early in the implementation stages during my observations. The project itself was changing as time went on and greater depth of meaning developed among participants. The largest indicator of success was that teachers had embraced the positive attitude about their students embodied in the term "Linguistically Gifted Persons.” Although they retained many characteristics of their traditional training, teachers were adopting the tenets of the Garcia Plan, and the culture of 227 the school was supporting their growth. If the support remained over time, they would certainly continue to grow as Routman, Fullan and Cuban predict. As Cuban notes, ”changing teachers’ attitudes needs to be closely bound to tangible school and classroom help in putting new ideas into practice” (281); such help came from Elena, fellow teachers, and university professors during my research. Fullan notes that a 25% movement of teachers into student-centeredness should be viewed ”as a victory” (282) because of the constraints within which teachers work. He emphasizes that change is difficult, and that it occurs with ”natural and inevitable...struggle” (31). He adds that the ”difficulty of learning new skills and behavior and unlearning old ones is vastly underestimated” (129) as teachers change. Good schools foster ”career-long learning” (134) since cultural change is the real ”agenda” of reform. Routman, pragmatic practitioner, writing in 1991, admits that her evolution to a whole-language teacher began in the ”mid-19703” (21) and is ongoing. She predicts that the change from traditional teaching to a whole language approach ”is at least a five- to ten-year process” (22). A change from teacher-centered to student-centered approaches might take just as long. Yet my observations of the teachers in this massive change project came during the first and second years following its inception. While the support for teachers from the school itself was strong, and their response was enthusiastically revealed in Elena’s Re-examination of Basic Principles survey, the support for the school from the larger district culture became less certain as I completed my observations. Peter Senge (1990) might comment that the system was providing a feedback loop — and pushing back. Senge’s systems thinking might have helped the staff react more positively when such pushing occurred. 228 F ullan (31-32) pointed out that even in a change process where all participants are excited about the project, people experience anxieties. Some participants will experience ”false clarity” and think they have changed more than an objective observer would see. Even those individuals may make significant changes, however, if they continue their path to shared meaning (Fullan, 46). The principal and the teachers were working in interaction with one another, with the university, and with their community partners to heighten that meaning and extend their commitment by June of 1993, when I made my last classroom observation. But they were also encountering the nonrational response discussed by Deal (1984). Their project had created new heroines and heroes in Fruitville, and the "whisperers" did not like that. Not only had the Garcia staff garnered publicity in the process, but they had actually challenged the deficit model so long espoused by so many. By a variety of measures, some detailed in their own annual report, they were proving that a non-deficit model could succeed. 9mm Americ labeled Elemex they p. decisic dama meat unde Offer Cart Sha. IEat R0] CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Ceudusiens Woodward, Harste and Burke (1984) wrote of Latrice, the African- American child who came to school knowing much more than the educators who labeled her ”without language” could see. The staff of Armando Garcia Elementary School took a big step to reject such Bernstein-based models when they proclaimed their students ”Linguistically Gifted Persons.” Their label decision alone was a powerful statement, a sort of talisman to prevent the damaging ”ability” tracking that can result from the deficit model. But they put meat on the bones of their idea by drafting the ambitious Garcia Plan to undergird their decision and by contracting with California State, Fruitville to offer ground-breaking inservice to support teachers' efforts at change. The Garcia Plan embraced the ”philosophy of possibility” discussed by Giroux in Shannon (1992) and invited the collaborative construction of curriculum by teachers, children and literacy researchers extolled by Harste (1989) and Robinson and Stock (1990). As some of the Garcia teachers acknowledged, their inservice was not yet perfect. The designers needed to slow down and allow more time for processing, reflection and assimilation of ideas. But even if the inservice was not perfectly tailored to meet the needs of teachers, it paved the way for such tailoring. Surely it would have intrigued Harley, Allen, Cummins and Swain (1987), who called for in-depth studies of the sort of inservice really required by teachers moving to less prescriptive methods. 29 230 It is true that teachers who had made personal commitments to the Garcia Plan still fell unconsciously into deeply ingrained Initiation-Response- Evaluation patterns of classroom discourse. In addition, they tended to dominate the classroom airtime. Weininger (1982b), who pointed out the same failings in Irish attempts at immersion approaches to language instruction, might have predicted that the old ways of teaching are not easy to eradicate. Change researchers Cuban (1993) and F ullan (1991) would not disagree. But I believe that the Garcia teachers genuinely wanted to work toward communicative competence (Canale and Swain, 1979; Cummins, 1982; Dodson, 1983 and others) and a classroom atmosphere of ”participatory democracy” (Cummins, 1982) for their students. Though they might not have used the phrase, they were dedicated to the "elimination of ethnolinguistic prejudice,” a virtue observed by Beardsmore and Kohls (1988) in European schools. Garcia teachers wanted their students to maintain pride in their primary cultures and proficiency in their primary languages while they learned English and the American culture. Their attitude of valuing students, evident to even the casual observer, would help to prevent the loss of primary languages and culture observed by Wong Fillmore (1991) when primary languages and culture are not valued during second language acquisition. Gonzalez (1991), Cummins (1979, 1986) and Krashen (1985) argued in favor of the undergirding of primary languages espoused by the faculty. A cautionary note remains. The Garcia teachers need to continue to work toward experiential learning for their students to avoid passive learning environments with limited opportunities for students to produce meaningful output and engage in higher order thinking. Ramirez (1991) saw such passive learning in his longitudinal studies of three instructional strategies (including immersion) for second language acquisition. Ckflheri shortte Idena’s leastfo 231 Unfortunately for Garcia staff, the district and the state are impatient for results, and would like to demonstrate as quickly as possible that programs like Garcia’s result in high test scores and many students reclassified as Fluent in English. This political climate is exactly the impatience discussed by Collier (1992), who observed that evaluators are typically looking for ”instant or short term answers” just ” one or two years” into a new program (231). Echoing Elena’s advice to Maria, Collier admonishes that true results take much longer, at least four years (231). Wong Filhnore, Cummins and others, cited in Swain and Lapkin (1989) state that true proficiency in a second language may take even longer to develop, as long as five to eight years. Given these predictions, the progress made by Garcia staff during the time of my observations is astounding. I saw the first two years of a brand new school with an ambitious plan. Yet by the time my observations ended, numerical measures already heralded success. Test scores had risen substantially and attendance was abnormally high for such a student population. Although some might argue that these factors could be explained by the Hawthorne effect, my follow-up contacts in 1995 indicate that the results had staying power. Turnover of students and staff was remarkably low. By qualitative measures such as teacher and parent attitudes, the school was also succeeding. Despite anticipated and unanticipated frustrations during the first two years, a survey of staff by California State University researchers revealed that they remained highly committed to the Garcia Plan. 1]"EE'1'EEI‘IEE Garcia Elementary is a unique school within a unique context. My research documents a process that happened to one group of change agents working with one set of circumstances. I have produced an ethnography of a snigheg pnflect project ° Big 09%. resr ' 'Teal sur] oxxa ' 'Iea teac reqi ° lCor can Cha: ' Sch, recc ene: 0 Cha COO the the . SYSt 232 single change project, not a treatment to be standardized and applied to other projects. Nevertheless, lessons with potential carryover to other change projects include the following: 0 Big dreams can succeed in public education. Fullan is right to suggest (1991,71) that the greater the scope of the project, the greater the possible results. 0 Teachers are capable of changing their instructional patterns with the right support. Their change may be gradual, so the support needs to be in place over time. ' Teacher-centered approaches are deeply ingrained in traditionally trained teachers. Videotapes of classroom interaction coupled with coaching may be required to help teachers see their own patterns of classroom interaction. ' N on-deficit models have the power to draw converts, and their conversion can be real. 0 A school that consciously becomes a ”learning organization” has a greater chance of succeeding in producing change. 0 School change probably succeeds more easily given a self-selected staff reconstituted around a well-articulated vision. A collaborative, visionary and energetic leader may be a key ingredient to initiation of school change. 0 Change truly ”takes the whole village,” to paraphrase a popular saying. Cooperative learning needs to extend to the parents, the corrununity partners, the district ” shareholders” of a school in order for change projects to persist. ' Unanticipated consequences of success are likely. As much as possible from the view at the beginning of a change project, participants need to develop systems perspectives, learn to predict consequences, and plan for them. I I' . E E II B l I found myself as surprised as Elena and her staff by the unanticipated consequences of success. The answer may lie in Senge’s systems thinkin suspect find be: With Sta “111mg, contribi WOuld , 233 thinking archetypes. Few educators are trained in systems thinking, but I suspect that such training might enable those of us who would foster change to find better ”points of leverage,” to inoculate ourselves against overwhelming frustration, and to sustain ourselves over the years such projects may take. I know of a project by Jay Forrester at MIT that links systems thinking to curriculum development. I heard a presentation in 1993 by Carl Ball of the Ball Foundation, Sherry Immediato of Innovation Associates (Peter Senge’s consulting agency) and Sue Berryman, formerly of Teachers College and now of The World Bank They were gathering data on educational systems in hopes of offering a change model. I have not seen their work, but I think that a worthwhile research project would be an extension of their data to ethnography in a particular change project. I am especially curious to know if one can ”anticipate the unanticipated” with greater success and prevent some of the nonrational reactions that discourage change agents. A second valuable project in connection with Garcia School and Fruitville would be a longitudinal study of the impact on students of the Garcia curriculum and approach. So much controversy exists over the success of bilingual education. New research by Rossell and Baker published in the February 1996 issue of Wappears to support a program like Garcia’s. Rossell and Baker have done a meta-analysis of many bilingual programs studies, rejecting any that were not ”true experiments” (13) with statistical analysis of outcomes. Still, their results could be useful to an ethnographer gathering broader long-term evidence on student achievement. Finally, a longer-term analysis of Garcia’s change project could contribute much to the literature on change and to the morale of those who would undertake change in schools. We hear so much about failures. The Garcia i; could h workin Olll USU 234 Garcia story, instructively told and disseminated to the appropriate audiences, could have the power to make a difference in American education. Those working with Linguistically Gifted Persons, who are so frequently ill-served by our usual strategies, could find the Garcia story inspiring. made ni pleased liaria,i differer implerr Inetha Years. Elena ] leader: Hjfl1il the dis OPIIIic bundi CHAPTER VIII EPILOGUE Political winds have blown strongly since June of 1993, when I made my last official classroom observation at Garcia School. The staff was pleased that after a lengthy search for a replacement principal, the district chose Maria, who had been Elena’s vice-principal. Maria’s personality is much different from Elena’s but she had been present through the planning and implementing of the Garcia Plan. In an interview on March 28, 1995, Maria told me that she had been a friend and colleague of Elena’s for more than twenty years. She knew it would not be easy to follow her as the leader of Garcia. The district, she said, had been nervous that she would be the rebel Elena had been. But she also said the new area superintendent and district leadership were more supportive than the people she and Elena had worked with in the beginning. She added that she had her own ways of working with the district. She characterized herself as a ”listener" who forms her own opinions quietly. She wanted very much to ”take care of things” within the building and make sure the teachers see that she is dedicated to the Garcia Plan. She had not counted on the influence of the Comite de Padres de Familia when she took the job. Districts fear the triennial compliance review mandated by the most recent settlement of their lawsuit against the state, and Fruitville Unified is no exception. The district insisted that the only way to be compliant was to have a pull-out of monolingual Spanish students, to segregate 235 9_ W'. 1", 4 them a: credent pressur school 7 Garcia - SCIIOOl j for Car I marche— anothei Garcia percent uniforr. three U 236 them and assign them the Spanish-speaking teachers who have bilingual credentials. Despite Elena’s advice to fight that mandate, Maria bowed to pressure and placed all monolingual Spanish students in Track D for the 1995-96 school year. The district also insisted that Maria add a ” special day class” to the Garcia curriculum. It is actually a special education class, Maria said, and the school gets students who are bused in from all over the district to take it. Other district-mandated changes included redrawing of boundaries for Garcia with the opening of another new school. Parents were so angry they marched at a school board meeting to protest having their children moved to another school. Other points Maria noted seemed more in keeping with the original Garcia Plan. The school library had acquired 50 books in Spanish. Ninety-nine percent of the school was wearing uniforms, and Maria was proud to report that uniforms had spread to other schools in the district. In fact, she said that all but three middle schools now had uniforms. The Garcia staff was still distressed that Redwood Middle School continued to segregate their Limited English Proficient students. At the time of our conversation, the sixth grade staff of Garcia had planned a meeting with the Redwood staff to share their concerns. Maria was hopeful they could get compromise, once Redwood’s new principal was in place. Maria knew that Garcia continued to have influence over students who went on to Redwood, because they came back to Garcia to tutor and take extended-day language classes. Maria’s sister-in-law taught at Redwood, she said, and reported that Garcia alumni were the best behaved and overall best students at Redwood. Maria was disappointed that Garcia’s test scores were not yet where she wanted them to be, but Garcia was first in the district in terms of , "has! A pl‘OgIE.‘ least th as Elem. Garcia an alan inciden teams of the o Elena’s Maria. schogt left th. agT‘ee they , than . The ( 8003‘ Eric; did had SCh cw 9n 237 progress demonstrated. Elena had cautioned her to give the Garcia program at least three years to succeed. Sure enough, Maria said, the scores were rising just as Elena had predicted. Reading Recovery had been instituted in second grade, and a Garcia teacher was in training to be a teacher leader. The school had had to have an alarm system installed because it had suffered a string of break-ins and incidents of graffiti. The school continued to be used for long hours. Soccer teams now used the playground after school. Maria added that visitors continued to be numerous, and that more of the other schools in Fruitville were sending visitors. She had continued Elena’s practice of making Wednesdays visitation days. Erica, a resource teacher, met with me the same day I visited with Maria. She had filled in as vice-principal the previous year and had handled the school’s budget, a great learning experience, she said. She said she felt that Elena left the school too soon. She knew that if I polled the staff, the majority would agree with her statement. Elena had done a fine job of empowering the staff, but they could have used her leadership for at least three or four years instead of less than two, she said. But the vision for the school had survived her departure. The Garcia Plan had continued to grow and change, and she felt that that was good. The technology plan had been slow in developing, and that frustrated Erica. Part of the reason for the slow implementation had been that the district did not get all the wiring done until the third year. The equipment the school had started with was already obsolete, of course. But she was pleased that the school had acquired 30 laptop computers and small minilabs of four or five computers for classroom use. Juana had written a grant that bought five top-of- the-line computers, a color scanner and a color printer for the media center. The no the Ch: vision that la: Garcia highes gains. Persc C0ulc dOCu Carc invoi trill]; 238 Turnover of staff had been minimal since Elena left, Erica added. The new people were excellent, and few of the original group had left. One of the challenges of adding new people had been to bring them up to date on the vision and the history of the school. Erica had helped to formulate an orientation that lasted an afternoon, for which the new teachers were released from classes. Erica said she was very pleased that the test scores for students at Garcia continued to climb. In mathematics and language, Garcia had had the highest gains in the district, and in reading, they had had the second highest gains. But some children still scored below the fiftieth percentile. Erica closed our conversation with an affirmation that she was proud to be part of the ongoing change effort at Garcia, and that she had begun keeping a journal, something she wised she had done from the beginning. Someday, maybe, she would write a book about the experience of starting Armando Garcia Elementary School. I hope Erica will write her book, as she could shed light on the personal experience of fundamental change as no one else could. In fact, Erica could contribute mightily to the body of research that informs those of us who document and value change and the courage of change agents like Elena and the Garcia staff. She could validate further Fullan’s (1991) reminder that all change involves ambivalence and anxiety, loss and struggle—and incredible joy and triumph. Real change...whether desired or not, represents a serious personal and collective experience characterized by ambivalence and uncertainty; and if the change works out it can result in a sense of mastery, accomplishment, and professional growth. The anxieties of uncertainty and the joys of mastery are central to the subjective meaning of educational change, and to success or failure-facts that have not been recognized or appreciated in most attempts at reform (32). APPENDICES APPENDIX A 239 APPENDIX A 6112 Courtside Midland. Ml 48642 May 6, 1992 Administrative Staff Teachers Classified Personnel Elementary School Dear Friends: As many of you know, 1 am a graduate student at Michigan State University who will be conducting research at your school in the coming months in preparation for writing the dissertation for my doctorate in English Education. I have chosen a as the site of my research because you have made unique plans ng with the multicultural community you serve. My particular interest is in your language policies and how they are enacted. Although I have discussed several possible research approaches with a number of you since last August, 1 have settled on descriptive ethnography. That means I will be collecting data much as an anthropologist would, by observing, interviewing you and those beyond your walls who are affected by your policies, and examining "artifacts" (videotapes you have made, your recent application for the Senate Bill 1274 grant, and so on). Often I will want to audiotape interviews. classroom sessions or meetings for transcription and analysis later. Because their schedule seems to mesh best with the times I can be in town, my primary classroom focus will be on the teachers in Track D, but I would like to be able to visit with all of you. Please understand that your participation in this project is voluntary, that you can withdraw from the project at any time, and that in all discussions and writeups about the project. you will remain anonymous. Anything you share with me will be held in strictest confidence. When my work is finished, I will provide your school with copies of my dissertation. if you have questions about my project, please contact me at 1-800-345-9844, extension 6-2471, or feel free to call my doctoral committee chair, Professor Marilyn Wilson, at (517) 355-1634. Thank you for your help. Sincerely. q .. . . . 7g!“ " (flf‘t'néa’-d ”Law “Jim B. loveless attachment Figure 8 Permission Letter, Garcia Staff 240 My signature below indicates my consent to participate in the doctoral research project of Jan B. Loveless. I understand that my participation is voluntary, that I can withdraw from the project at any time. that anything I share with jan will be held in strictest confidence, and that i will remain anonymous in any reports of Jan's research. name (please print) position signature date (Please return this slip to Tina in the main office.) 241 6112 Courtside Midland. MI 48642 May 6. 1992 Business Partners of _ Elementary School Parents of Students at _ Elementary School — Unified Personnel Who interact with — Elementary - Unified School Board Members Others Who Have interest in — Elementary I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University who will be conducting research at r Elementary School in the coming months. 1 have chosen as the site of my dissertation research because of the unique plans made by the staff for working with the multicultural community served by the school. My interest. in particular. is in the language policies at Balderas and how they are enacted. My research will be a descriptive ethnography. That means i will be collecting data much as an anthropologist would. by observing. interviewing and examining “artifacts" (videOtapes about the school. the school‘s application {or a CA Senate Bill 1274 grant. written statements of mission. etc.). Often l will want to audiotape interviews or meetings for transcription and analysis later. Please understand that your participation in this project is voluntary. that you can withdraw from the project at any time. and that in all discussions and writeups about the project. you will remain anonymous. Anything you share with me will be held in strictest confidence. When my work is finished. I will be happy to provide a copy of my dissertation for you to read. If you have questions about my project. please contact me at l-800-345-9844. extension 6—2471. or feel free to call my doctoral committee chair. Professor Marilyn Wilson. at (517) 3554634. Thank you for your help. Sincerely. 9")“ B. Loveless attachment Figure 9 Permission Letter: Community Partners, School Board Members, and Others ix) lb Ix) Consent Form for Person Who interacts with _ Elementary My signature below indicates my consent to participate in the doctoral researchprojeCtoEIanB.l-..oveiess. lunderstandthatmy‘pmicipationis mammary. that i can withdraw from the. project at any time. that anything 1. share. with Jan will. be held in. striCteSt- confidence. and that i will: remain- anonymous in- an-y reports of Ian's research. name (please print) relationship to ‘ signature date 243 6112 Courtside Midland, MI 48642 May 6. 1992 Dear Parents of- Students, 1 am a graduate student at Michigan State University who will be conduco‘ng research on the unique language policies a Elementary School during the coming months. In the course of this research, I may be observing in the classroom of your child. Please understand that your child's participation in my research project is voluntary, and that I will identify no child by name in any report of my research. You may withdraw your child from this research project at any time, if you decide that you prefer he or she no longer participates. if you have questions about my work, you may call me at 1-800-345-9844, extension 6-2471, or you may call my professor, Dr. Marilyn Wilson, at (517) 355—1634. Your signature below indicates that you give your permission for your child to participate in my research project. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, . Loveless Please sign, detach and return to your child's teacher: _— I give my permission for my child to participate in the research project of Jan B. Loveless, a graduate student at Michigan State University, who will be conducting her project at— Elementary. __ I do not give my permission for my child to participate in the research project of Jan B. Loveless. I understand that my child's participation is voluntary, that he/she will ' remain anonymous, and that I can withdraw him or her from this project at any time. child's name (please prim) child's teacher parent signature Figure 10 Permission Letter to Garcia Parents MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MIC! or we: nus-osm nos semen usr muse-'6 - loosens - «stems AND MAN 0? THE GMDUATIL SCI-loci. August 3, 1992 Jan 8. Loveless 6112 Courtside Midland, MI 48642 RE: LANGUAGE some! AND reams: ran HIDER IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING FROM A DEFICIT To A POSITIVE MODEL IN A MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY, 123 {92-274 Dear Ms. Loveless: The above project is except. tron full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol has been reviewed by a nenber of the UCRIBS cal-mitten. The rights and welfare or ntnaan subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that comes approval. is valid for one calendar year. It you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please take provisions tor obea ininq appropriate Bennie approval one month prior to July 30, 1993. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by ucnras prior to initiation or the change. ucRIKS oust: also be notified pronptly of any problem (unexpected side effects, coaplainee, etc.) involving hunan subjects during the course or the work. Thank you for bringing this project to ny attention. It I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let no know. Sincerely, DdVid E. Wright, Ph.D air University Committee search Involving Human Subjects (UCRIKS) DEW/pin cc: or. unrilyn wilson male-WWW” Figure 11 Permission for Research from University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects. APPENDIX B 245 APPENDIX B W In 1990, the _ Unified School District adopted specific perfor- mance goals which appear below: ud ve Increased test scores Increased enrollment in academic courses Increased enrollment in a-f courses Increased enrollment and achievement in A.P. classes Increased percentage of students taking S.A.T. tests Increased college enrollment W - Decreased one year dropout rate v Decreased three year dropout rate by 50% - Improved early identification of students identified as "at risk" of dropping out o Decreased number of students identified as "at risk” of dropping out . Increased attendance 0 Decreased tardiea - Decreased internal transiency flgyggnt 3.11;: gag gghool Clings. - Increased on-campue security . Improved school appearance - Assess parent satisfaction with educational programs and school environment Unified School District contracted with of — California to conduct an analysis of the district's central office administrative structure and procedures. Ten conditions were identified that have decreased and essentially impeded the effectiveness and efficiency of the district's managerial system: The Inappropriate performance incentives Skewed central administrative authority Misdirected resources Outmoded technology Inequitable and inconsistent personnel practices Unstable and uncertain district leadership in the recent past Insufficient concentration upon common organizational goals Blurred accountability Ineffective communication Inadequate orientation toward serving schools District staff and the governing board agree that the identification of these conditions has set the stage for a major restructuring effort throughout the district. Figure 12 District Goals APPENDIX C 246 APPENDIX C Jane .5. 199‘. Princ1oal Elementary School _m ddle Scnool Room - —. ca— oear — Enclosed please find a draft of a poss:ble inserv:ce agreeeent between CSL'S School 0+ Education and Human Development and Elementary School. Please rev1ew it and let me know what you think. The format is unique to both of our institutions and provides the structure and fac1lltating components to asszst the faculty and leadership of Elementary School in developing, implementing, evaluating. and sharing their unique program model. It Simultaneously accomplishes the task of building a poweréul and cohesxve instructional team: allows for ind1v1dual cho:ces in professional development areas: and. prov1des the common thread that is needed to include everyone in DUIldlng a unaoue and innovative school. In addition. the design allows teachers to apply credits earned towards a graduate degree. Call me at your convenience and we can discuss the document. As always. I am looking +oruard to working with you on this most innovative school 065190. Sincerely, Figure 13 Memorandum of Understanding between Garcia Elementary and California State University, Fruitville Figure 13 (cont'd). Memorandum 0+ Understanding Ecnool ov‘ Education and Human Development o+ ESL. d an _Elementarv SChool‘ of FUSD The ourocse 0+ this hemorandum of, Understanding is todelxneate the cortent oi an Inserwce Proiect at-Elementarv‘ School. Providing an inserVice drocram éor adorox'imatelv 30 teachers. the ob.:ecti»-e 04 this CFCJECt 15 four-+old: first. to increase the sartzcmatinq teacners‘ eééectiveness in- meeting the needs-o'trtheir students. man-v o+ whom are LEP/NE“: second. to prepare those teachers in effective intervention strategies +‘or LEF‘INEF' students with the possxbilitv that these strategies can +prm the basis for stccessful commie-teen of the LES Certificate Examination if deemed: third. to increase the instructional effectiveness of teachers in their various areas of individual interest: and. fourth. to provide a framework which enables the teacher and printipal to shape the school in a war that it becomes a model o+ exemplarv schooling. -.. ‘ ‘ Coursework for this hUU will be delivered flexiblv over a three year period. and will include all fees due to the universitv. YEAR I will include :2 units of instruction: YEAR 2 will include l‘."~ units 0+ instruction and YEAR 3 will include 6 units of instruction. YER? I: I: Units Summer 1991-—Currtculum Develooment (CIET 28¢T) 2 units Fall 1991 and Spring I992--LDS'lnserVice PFOJECt l0 units YEAR 1: 12 units Summer I992~Curriculum Evaluation (CTET 2801') 1- unit Fall 1992-Enrollment Options Tailored to Faculty Needs Cotton 1: Courses leading to the m for those who» wish -Research in Education (ERF 220-) 1'. units -Sesnnar in Myriam mm. czar 285) 3. units (Note: El-'-.1r I53 {Statistics} is prerequisite to the M in Education and is not included in this contract.) w .. . 1..“ Option 11: For non-m students-%- units in a speCialized area 0+ theice Spring i993--Enroll;ment Options Tailored to Facultv Needs Option l: Courses leading to the HA for those who uisti -F'racticmm in Curriculum Development (LTET 2‘75! 2- units -Specialized Elective 3 units g; Option ll: For nan-gin at: S ‘ - manoeu- ‘fEffi 3: o untgg 1993/‘l994--Courses leading to the MA for those who wish —CTET 298/299 PFO‘J'ECt/Thms 4 units -lndiVidual (theme 2 units 9; For noncfin- students—o units in a soecialized area of choice. 248 Figure 13 (cont'd). UniverSitv Fee Structure for_ Elementary School Progect Egg Amount Application Fee (one time) 3 55.00 b units/semester 270.00 Facilities Fee/semester 3.00 ID card/semester 2.00 Student Body Assoc./semester 16.00 Student Eddy Ctr./semester 38.00 Activities Fee/semester 10.00 Special Materials/Events 50.00 Parking/semester 54.00 TOTAL FEES/FIRST SEHESTER 498.00 TOTAL FEES/SUBSEOUENT SEhESTERS 443.00 COSTS PER STUDENT YEAR 1; I n ”I: u 12 units e $941.00 + $200 stipend/year/teacher (booksj>dtc.) - $1141.00 YEAR 2: 12 units e $886.00 + $200 stipend/year/teacher (books. etc.) = $1086.00 m 6 units e $443.00 + $100 stipend/semester/teacher (books. etc.)-3543.00 TOTAL COST PER YEAR FOR 30 TEACHERS: M 31141 X 30 teachers - s34.230.00 YEAR 2; $1086 X 30 teachers s 532.580.00 YEAR E! $543 X 30 teachers I s16.290.00 Date Date Elementary Date Date CS 050 APPENDIX D 249 APPENDIX D [PRIMARY LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIOQ Mrs. - lst Grade class, Track - D QM 3:15-9:4§ Khmer Hmong #1 Hmong #2 English Spanish 6 7 6 7 6 Center #1 Zoo Phomcs activities Center #2 Primary Language stones on cassettes usmg earphones. Center #3 Manipulatives. games. etc. Center #4 Art activities Center #5 Library activites Students are at an assigned center for a 30 minute period. Teacher (Spanish speaking). teaching assistant (Khmer speaking). and Hmong Cross Age Tutor (off track) follow their groups daily to instruct students in their primary language at each center. 1._1. Mum-Cultural story time. Stories told in a different language daily. Teacher, assistant, and Cross-Age tutor are story tellers. The Diglot Weave Method is used (Mixing English with the other language). 1 1° -1 Each student receives primary language instruction in math. Figure 14 Carmen's Handouts Re: Second Language Acquisition 250 Figure 14 (cont'd). W W approaches which focus on establishing receptive skills first (listening comprehension in particular, but to some extent also reading comprehension] and do not attempt specifically to train oral production--oral fluency being expected to emerge naturally and gradually out of the data base established through ample comprehension experience of the right kind-— are called Comprehension-Based approaches or Comprehension-Based Learning. (CBHJZBU 251 Figure 14 (cont‘d). W (James J. fisher) Children respond meaningfully to a particular type of input—-namely, directives in context-clear situations that invite an action response rather than a verbal response. W (ILH. Postovsky] Problem—solving tasks with multiple- choice responses--essentially the same as "identify the boxes" but automated for self- instruction. n problem-solving task that is close to the spirit of TPR gives instructions for drawing a simple picture. 252 Figure 14 (cont'd). WNT RN11 “Tlli W (H.lflinitzl fl self-instructional program consisting of audiocassettes with accompanying picture books, which follows the principles of Comprehension-Based Learning. T N P (T. Terrell] Learning of any age are able to take in speech input--if most of it is comprehensible—-and discover its system without having it arbitrarily broken down for them and spoon-fed. The approach supplies a high amount of input made comprehensible through pictures, actions, and situational, grammatical, and lexical transparency. gemsm r“ Fig [It 253 Figure 14 (cont'd). I — PU (R. LENTEIL 3?} Code switching. The mixing of two languages so as to artificially increase comprehensibility. ii promising vehicle for providing beginners with massive amounts of comprehensible input. TERClllNG ENGLISH as a Second Language (Marianne Came-Murcia} Fiau Figure 14 (cont'd). bidet-weave trout A significant part of a teacher’s task in cm. is to supply learners with voluminous comprehensible input. Beyond the com- monly used ways mentioned of providing large amounts of comprehensible input, there has been experimentation with some innova- tive ways which are capable of providing high-grade comprehensible input in massive amounts. One of those involves code switching, or, in its pedagogical application. diglot-weave input. Best known for the pro- mation of this concept is the work of Robins Burling l 1966. 1978. 1983), an anthropolo- gist at the University of Michigan who devel- oped a diglot-weave model for an experimen- tal class in reading French. Taking the text of a French novel, Burling changed its lexical and grammatical expression in the early pages to a form of English heavily influenced by French syntax. yet understandable. Then, page by page. he modified the text by adding more French features, but never so many as to hinder the comprehensibility of the text. His students could read the novel at near normal speed with full understanding. even though it gradually went from basically English to basi- cally French. An oral application of the diglot-weave principle was made by Rudy Lentulay H976). a professor of Russian at Bryn Mawr Univer- sity, when he was invited to teach a class in Russian for 20 minutes two days a week to kindergarten children. At first he hesitated to accept the invitation, wondering what he could teach them under such a limited sched- ule. By chance. he had iust finished reading Anthony Burgess’s novel A Clockwork Or- ange, in which the teenage characters use Russian words as slang. From this came the idea of making a word game that small chil- dren could play, so he accepted the job and created a novel approach to teaching a lano guage orally. Each week he told a different story. sprinkling Russian words in wherever 29 the context made their meaning clear and engaging the children in talk about the story, all in English except for where the new Rus- sian words were called for. The game was this: Once a new expression was started in circulation. the children were expected to use it in place of its English equivalent thereafter. The "trick” was to catch the teacher or a pupil usrng an English word or phrase where the Russian equivalent was called lor. Before the end of the term he was telling stories with mostly Russian words, and the children were understanding and able to play the game. Here rs the first part of an EnglishoSpanish diglot-weave story. modeled on one Lentulay told. it is to be presented with the aid of pic- tures and mime. ACMAboutaSmashedVenrana WoufdyOulikemeto tellyouacuenfo?0wni.let me tell you on canto about some naughty mum—5m mortar-Iron and some Mocha—who were playing with apebb in la calenearunacasa. Look.mth:s&uiovoucan seelacaraMit-uenrorsabourmglassmana onlasegundastorydehcasa. Besides being about some miles playing"- lofaenla talk nearunacasa with glass m thrscuenforsabommhombrewhorselownerde beau. Thishombreisnotourenlacaflewithlos WMHeisenhist-ataonlasegmda floor whenelcvenrobegins. Andefcuento is about am kind reuier who is walking down to caletowardlacasaandlooksupandvewhat happens.rcanteuvounow.elhontbreenhcasa gevmenoiadoathsmundlamq'er rs shocked when she looks up and re what hap- pens. The novelty of mixing two language: so as to anifrcally increase conuehensibility of course shocks those who are on the side of accuracy above all and who fear that taking such liberties can only lead to a "pidginized" corruption of the authentic language. They question the legitimacy of code switching as a pedagogical device or the use of any text that is not a model of native use. Others see in diglot-weave texts g Eromrsigg W prOViding beginners with massive amounts of 30 Figt‘ "dunno Orb a Ck. .ILrtl 255 Figure 14 (cont'd). January 12, 1992 o l - h ’ ° After a group discussion and completing various activities, the students will develop abilities to distinguish between human needs and human wants. Set; I will explain the differences between human needs and wants using pictures and the student's primary languagel Hmong) and English. MW Pictures of food, water, air, love, shelter, and clothes. 3. Within their group students will sort pictures into two groups, human needs and human wants. b. Discussion will follow on why students sorted the pictures the way they did. glam "From the pile of pictures in front of you, I would like each of you to pick a picture which shows a human need and another picture which shows a human want." WM Students will cut out pictures of human needs and human wants from a magazine, sort and paste them onto a worksheet. Figure 14 (cont’d). my. ii i 4mm ‘ in: m Shana EiDianaR. Angelica . EGer £13m _hong ; tJavier EJacltie lPranklin LCIIIiorvy :‘BlongY. EgAdx-ian {Evette {Non tAu-ha {KongMengg EManuel gDeonta {Mary Cluna EKou siignaeio . {Josephine , EMichael r tRobert ENa L iAmandi’p L E Angelita r l l - Studentsareatacenteraflmiuuteseacbday. - Smdentsgoontothe next center the following day. - Teacherisatthe-primaryianguagetablecondtmtingiessonmeither English S orI-imongusingthefliglut-Weave Inputappmach. - Mr. mimerassistantstayswithKhmergroup ‘Cross-agedflmCHmngSthngfiomTriadmbetween Emanggmups; ’Cross-sgemtorthfiabi, 3rdngfromT1-iadstayswithl’umabi Mammmmmwmmmsmabm *' Assi‘stanceandeooperationfi'om 'h'iad teachers is outstanding. m Dadeab)= The Eagles Les Cohetes (los co— e-tes)’= The Rockets The Stars (stain-z)- : The Stars Zai (jab):- The Rainbows tarrmnése bah) = TheUaieoras Figure 14 (cont'd). W g M mink area) W Prim-w m 1m Art W Table #1 I Table #2 I W 1 Table #5 Listening-earphones 7 7 I Table #3 l I Table “J W W II! .M m m -word|cu boob DESK m .m [:mcrmmsl APPENDIX E PIC-'- 1| 12 73 258 APPENDIX E SocialStudesIGeography mg LatinideandLongiaide Date l t k t t n rt ll 92m 1. l-iowwouldyoudescrbelinesoilatitude? Namethe latitude line that formsthe northern borderoi California? HowmanydegreesoilatitudedoesCalil‘omiacover? HowmanydegreesoilatiuidedotheUnitedStatescover? insists Howwouldyoudmbelinesoilongitude? 6. Identify the longitude line that crosses through Lake Tana Circle Lake Tahoe on your map. (Hint: We in Caiitornla.) 7. The easternmost point in Caiiiomia is at Parker Dam on the Colorado River. Locate the Colorado River and circle it on your map. 8. Approximatelywhat longitude istl'ieeastemnostpointoi Florida? 9. Circle St. Joseph. Missouri. at 40' north latitude and 95' west longitude. 10. On April 14, 1846, a smaiiwagon train began along journeyto California. They began their journey in Springfield, illinois. Find this city near 40'N and saw, and mark it with an X. 11. independence, Mimuri, which is a sworn of Kansas City. Missouri. was the last townonthe trontierand was an important departurepointtor pioneers headed west Mark anX on this important city. (Hint: it ie weet and a little eouth of Springfield.) 12. Now drawa line from Springfield to Kansas City. 13. Nametl'ieriveronwhichKansasCltyislocated. Figure 15 Paula's Geography Worksheet APPENDIX F 259 APPENDIX F February 3. 1992 Dear Jan and Michelle: Greetings from - These are the dates for our parent training program the next three months:. Wed, Feb. 5 ’We Care About Your Child's Safety" Wed" Feb. i9 "Family Math” Wed. March 25 “Parents and Teacher: Working Together Wed" April 22 ”Self Esteemuart Essential Element to Student Leanfieg' .Atimeetingsmhddiadxeimgnagesafommmfinmummguo. Spanish and Khmer (Cambodian). We usually have 50-75 parents in each Hmoagaethmergroup andtS-30eachiatheraegiiah.Lao.aadSpaniah [wouiduymetahoutfi‘bofallpareotsofsmdeotsoethecm orounduactaattenddleaemeetinga. (Wehopetoreachtheofl-track throughout soon-te—oe-iasulied multilingual voeiemil system.) By WatupmaueedaaeemeofwmeeMwheolaiaeerareeis 54-15%. Our goal is to have lm pmieipatioe by our second year! iii Theprimaryiaageagepreaememaretnineda-eekorsoheforeeach workahopsothntheyareabietoondemandthecoetentotthepmutim. During the presentation itself. an English speaking teacher or stat! member sits with each language group in lite event that questions arise that the primary language trainer tamer answer. Translators are also available in Mice. Punjabi. and Vietnamese. Since we only have about to students from each of these minor languages. their parent: attead the English session-vibe interpmerssitby themaaddoaeeocerreat trmlaioeduiagthemeetiag. it is very challenging indeed to conduct all parent meetings and workshop in this way-bet we have no choice-#51: of our parents are non-English or limitedEagiiabspeakiag. Itiaaiotofwomtmt-eueahraayapermany satisfiedattereaehmeetiagbecameitiaaoweflmivedhyourpam. Letmeknowil'yeaaeedmoreiafomation. Figure 16 Garcia Parent Training Program 260 Figure 16 (cont'd). Elementary School PARENT EDUCATION WORKSHOP " FAMILY MATH" WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY l9. l992 0:00 - 7:00 P.M. (H )Al.: PARTICIPANTS WILL PLAN A WEEKLY GROCERY LIST AND COMPARE GROCERY PRICES IN ORDER TO FIND THE BEST BUYS. By the end ot'the lesson they will be able to add the items on their grocery list using a calculator to find out ii" they are within budget. PRlX‘EDURl—LS: I. Participants will be grouped by language: Hmong-Auditorium; Khmer--Media Center: English-Rm. l8: Spanish--Rm.l7: LaouRm. l6. All other language groups. Mien. Vietnamese. and Punjabi will go to the English group. where interpreters will do a concurrent translation of the workshOp. 2. 20 min. The primary language presenters will present an overview of this evening's goal. Main idea is to convince participants that they will make the most of their food money if-- a. they plan their meals in advance (at least a week in advance) h. use newspaper ads to compare prices c. cut out coupons that they could use d. once in the store stick to their grocery list plan 3. 40 min. in the cooperative groups. participants will: a. make a grocery list (they could cut out ad pictures or draw pictures of their items if they do not know how to writel b. the facilitator will give them toy money (55011)). They will be directed to scour the newspaper ads and cut out the items that reflect the best prices. c. participants will use calculators to add amounts and to deduct total expenditures from $50“). Teacher and Primary Language Facilitators (”asterisked names are lead facilitators) Hmong _I'eacher. Gr. 5 Teacher. Gr. 2 ‘ Teacher. Gr. 4 Teacher. Gr. I Vice Principal Migrant Education RCA TA :. °S| " Resource Teacher ‘-Teacher. Gr. 4 Teacher. Gr. 5 — TA FI'! ‘ Teacher. Gr. 31'4 Teacher. K Teacher Facilitators: Please make sure that all materials are prepared for your group (newspaper ads. scissors. glue. construction paper (from officer. calculators. overhead projector (if needed) APPENDIX C 261 APPENDIX C February 18. I992 Lamar Alexander. Secretary of Education. School Visitation 8:30—8:35 Curbside Welcome _. Principal _. Superintenden- County Schools — Superintendent. FUSD 8:35-8:45 Staff Presentation Character Development: First Grade Teacher. Track A lfistnry/Soeiai Science Chapter 1 Resonree'l'encher Handslon Science! eclmology: — Resource Specialist. Special Education Parent Education/Involvement: _ Vice Principal Primary/Foreign Law. LOP Resource Teacher Staff Development: Princi School/Business Partnerships: Principal 8:45-8:48 l-lmorig Dance 8148-825} Passing 8:50-91!) Classroom Visitations: Rms Sand 6 The'TRACK AEVENTRIAD' (W24md6) havebeenstudyingascienceunitonthe structure andfunctionoftheeye.Theexpectationforsecond gradersis toidentifythe sixhasic partsoftheeye: forfounhgrademtnorailyeaplainthefumoftherennaandoumnemand comparethemtoacamera: forsixthgraderstoexplainhowthebrainreceivesandproceases information fromtheeyeandtheuseoflensestocorrectvisionproblems. Thepurposeofthenmltiagetriadistoenableolderstudenuto assistyoungerstudentsduringthe lesson. For 45minuteseverydaythe2nd. 4th. andéthgradestudennaregroupedinprimary languagetriadstoenablethernto discussconeeptsintheirprimary langingeThis d'evehnpsthe limitedEnglish speakersahihrymthinkanddiscussconteminhodtlanguagesTheBilingual ResourceConnseliug Assistant facilitatesinstruction inthe primary language. MWWBMDMEMthNWWM indusdiffncnltcontentarea. The-engineers serveasrolemodelsandpnvidetechnieaieapertiseforonrteachers. Room 6 GradeGTeaeher.TraekB Grade 2Teacher. Track B Chemical Engineer Bilingual Resource Counseling Assistant ( Hmong) Roorn5 Grade 4Teacher. Track 8 ResourceSpecialist Engineer Bilingual Resource Counseling Assistant (Khmer) Figure 17 Lamar Alexander's Visit to Garcia Elementary APPENDIX H 262 APPENDIX H Tenclier:__ __Track:____Grade:_ Rm: WEEKLY LESSON PLANS Evidence of correlation to School Site Plan Expected student outcomes evident All subject areas included Reflects curriculum integration Clear. specific ()ther SUBSTITUTE PLANS All materials in substitute folder lnstmcu'ons to Substitute clear Activities specific Referral to necessary forms Students in special programs listed and scheduled CLASSROOM/SCHOOLWIDE DISCIPLINE PLAN __Clnssroom Discipline Plan evident: inlcludes rules. rewards. consequences _Systematic documentation evident; includes record of patent contact __List and description of 'severcs/chronics" _Evidence of teacher's positive intervention efforts __Explanation of Assertive Discipline Plan evident IIOMEWORK PLAN _Homework Plan directly related to academic expectations/outcomes _System of monitoring _Required reading list __ Parent's monitoring required _System of dealing with students having homework problems STUDENT PORTFOLIOS _hnnging legal size folder per child. stored in movable plastic bin. student's name on plastic tab _reading log 1 holistically writing sample per quarter-~has gone through complete writing process I open-ended math sample per quaner 1 math unit test/assessment per quarter 1 self-selected student work per quaner (any subject) Figure 18 Garcia Principal-Teacher Pre-Evaluation Conference AP P E NDIX I W 263 APPENDIX I 83: 57:25.. - #323». was... cage: :.3 - ES mrm!ntqbz< autos: finaoou .3» .4 00') «rpm! p .zpnxa ... «nanxn .. 3.90 H . - 3 . :EfiEEEHCEEEw_EEEEEEE: r _ 4 u . ejNHWMLWg. :.:E»..Euoa.. - ”an... I 273.. l ”so! - mason. '2. «use... ' «use! ”090““ I 2.6.. ‘ 2.3. ’99.. ‘wnson. '. .30.. 'z «1.3. .-. «2.8. t «2: .. .e «98. '2 face. '98.. ' 993. Figure 19 Fruitville Unified Year-Round and Traditional Schedule APPENDIX 1 264 APPENDIX J SCHEDULE FOR 1992 - 1993 Kindergarten AM - 8:00 - 11:20 7:29 7:38 7:30 8:00 11:20 11:25 11:30 Bus Pickup (9th I: Braly) Bus Arrival at Breakfast School begins mm...“ — Bus Pickup Drop off ( 9th 5 Brady) Kindergarten PM - 11:40 - 3:25 11:00 11:10 11:10 - 11:40 11:40 3:25 3:35 3:42 Bus Arrival at Lunch School begins Dismissal — Bus Pickup Drop off (9th & Braly) Bus Pickup (9th & Brnly) . Grades 1 - 8 - Monday thru Thursday 7:29 7:35 7:30 - 8:00 8:00 8:15 9:45 -10:00 10:05 - 11:25 11:30 - 12:25 12:30 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 3:30 3:35 3:42 Bus Pickup (9th & Braly) Bus Arrival at- Breakfast line-uptSMg¥::lllllllll Instruction Recess Instruction Lunch instruction PEIArts/Humanltlesllleadlngl Study Period Ready for Dismissal Dismissal Bus Pickup Drop off (9th & Braly) Grades K - 6 - Friday ONLY (afternoons) 12:30- 1:00 1:00 - 1:15 1:15 Foreign Language Ready for Dismissal Dismissal Figure 20 Garcia Elementary Typical Day Schedule APPENDIX K 265 APPENDIX K To Parent/Guardian ot- Student: The month of October is going to be busy and exciting for all of us! Please marl: the following important dates on your calendar. W Parent Education Meeting; "How to Prepare for an Effective Parent-Teacher Conference." This meeting will be held in English, Spanish, Hmong, Khmer, and Lao. We encourage all parents to attend; (6:00 Elm-AW) WM Early dism'nsal for Grades 116-at 1:15 pm. Pamnt teacher conferences will begin at 1:30 as follows; Monday, October” :.Endiahlndividu uaiCenfcrcnm Tuesday October l5: “Green/individual Confcmnws Waincsday,(btobcr16: WGmup/‘lediwduaiConi‘crcnccs Thursday W17: “WWW Friday. October [8; mmmm- MindedConfciencas ”mmmafdm Wcmmmvcddl ° mmwmhmwmmw Al 11mm WM Makeaneffert tecemctealimeetingsandccnferenccs!‘ October 1 - 1'“ I f H Wig/h //I’// II. 3 ’ IIIIIIIIIeIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIII IIII III III I II III IIIIIIIIII| IIIIIIIIIII III III II III III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II" III IIIIIIIIIII III III II IIIII "III" I I IIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII III III III IIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIII III IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII Excerpts From the Principal's Parent Newsletters Figure 21 __________"\ 5.5“ I 266 Figure 21 (cont'd). Hmong Txoq Rail Tsoom Niall 'rxiv Maj Hneyuam tum aauv-: Lub 10 hli no yuav yoq ib lub hlis uas inunj new In uhnj mam: rau peb um dust m can cm: limb tum ceeb in; tau toev tseg rm li nrliil qlb no Ran nej nco gab: Uectnccdlz, 10 hli, tile 2: Lub rooj set: 113‘ gm enog txoj km! km rail cow nun exiv: "Yinv in ca: npaj ul ntoj koj yinv nest}: nroq til; xib tub Ron chili than tau 1b qhn execs ceeb town haw lub roaj ab 111 new nu icoj, rib hub cum koj out: new...” Lab :00} m 1&3 no yuav uuej m: In: hunch rlu n21 um dm. m 6 cm tun: trtuj, nob new clue . no)“ new. Luh esthiv new Int: 10 Mi tin 1: we ex tau the 18: Pet: uhua tune tux m km new yuev tn: cm exile: kw ulna limb than: 1:15 tlv Ill. .‘ “" Rooj set: 111 g me} an nine txiv thilb xib tub: Timmy. 101 1: boo limb-sail mogtmutm exiv tag nrho til it: chi-b ind-s nroq nyies tun ileum m :11: till: March rm hem — no pub nails txoj km :11. txiv Roan to nroqtsovkaunntawm um. Yaqlinotxhulubrooinb Lejpehyuav stir lit: to: area cov nil- unwell-veils: 81b exiles his. mmmmmmmmmmmmt ‘ Lao mm, .r-~ . , r: . gg'gug gaJJu/cgufin-a'rgn z:;¢:,5i.,u dc”; =I$(*_ I: ‘l ‘ ‘ U 2. ¥“ utv'HMbufiP}J~.@‘l¢.!}pr I '0 tar-u,»- 1'A_~ ~2H~ J" L D r ‘ (i .§. ‘ - ' ' J ‘ fit . £L\\:.21:.3“; _b-ve.“ wet-unan-a “““'“’N f g o I ‘ 2,5")... u-nuopin'scnu: I ‘ L , l - . {Hugs 31...!” .L “gone—um; 7:56 Cufin."-:-'1'u-l $611.81 '9' .0 _’ -. _.. ,— ‘ ‘ I a .1 . '- ~ 4' ' ‘1 fun-94'0”"... a. I!!!“ . We 1 1.; nt’o: 1'dJ'-‘U~ {...-p Juneau \- I. .I . ‘ ”in ’6:an 71:? g". i'dnjn‘ida- may) H or» I); tea-.52.» "A! 9': , 7'07d21.‘ 5733:7ahn'\¢3n (cdi usd‘ C7193 . a:(;;‘u'.$ ’ 7:...” . I o ' . the: ulstufifi . 195'9J)«|Jiu 5' %1-d-I’Md {m etude ”an: r» , I ' ‘1‘. q 6 q‘ " ”0‘ .J :.“Jnnin l ‘Ioleno: ro-oi 6311's» une,¢:t¢»fi‘~ 4“ 1' men “ ‘ 9 5' 1 9' .1 uraa, ‘ ... n (Mock-w.) £3, um .. e ""7" .5 h:,|3:4“_.e‘.}qs,';lu p Cad-Jifiw-i ) L a I Q 0 .i q ‘1 uuunlnnagusi 04 Cfi'aom M (00.99.41: _ "'"'" Z i. . a i rig-16""! “'3‘30 (£19131;qu hum 3"?‘0’ Damien} (5!: P“) “.I - L ' " ‘ .L .. mans era: «ALL-00] 3 n (Lin-l u. 1‘...) ‘ i ' -' I a J . "Idrt‘a a;._b_~p~ he rowan J.) «am: . O — ’c _l J 3.3174. adult: '4 Ogaufiafifl 'i ”qJ'trgfifd'I-J “hit-Irin- a . £135.50», gust“ nioufim' ”O‘J:1'd30‘&NR“V-fl‘ - ' ' . a . $1»;ch , 31-} '5 ¢¢~¢~e§£h .' ”nu: 1'...» ton!» can-Ii Btu»- ! .1 fl . :wu'vtfl‘ but?» I? firouhabl .' ”0'0? 1‘... egg-'2‘?” “$510.3JH. .J ‘ s e - in Qua,” . 3).“: I? ngrT-bi- we’lhlb.» {o¢UHLWyS\-3\3‘ DJnow‘ If»), , all“... , . . I . mi (71 in... 51' p-L g :. .' l d - I I J ’i°","”"‘ “mlk-{,dLDIHc¢~»udiua-IM” - O o z \ .31”‘0N~"#H u=vun¢IH_a,3; "¢’~Nflu I‘ ’.Y'€“ J.~. g u 0‘». p.e....a: 0:.“ :.3} via wilqiljiu 1n a$m,g?:1.;8.'; ‘kuu, l l Hits-I b'nu e.” unusual: is miuciiefi- {'2' I . Q I L. in: 3080:!» u, m m 1 6‘» aviaans'dzi... mns’ \ l. e " ' O 91%7‘75'09-9. I Figure 21 (cont'd). Khmer NO BONES “arm. mmvm gwmfi}: gymna— ABOUT IT! . P- ,I \‘ ,- M “ -'r_' ‘."J‘ :22: “T :33: ‘7’, Par-.3?“ 2.1": 337,-. .frs‘m an)” . .. ~ , ,'. ’ ' _ ' A , "-‘ ’ -‘ "‘ '- A '3“.'1/r‘r" 53‘: .2 r1237; 2' in Pry-7:: '7: I: >~~ ”Mr/rm I. ..— «.Ifi _.‘,;r-.:-__":,. :'.3;; f'vt‘.:_¢,: rave,- firza‘ “fl'uyf’ih; [:.3/fl}; 131.. . -' : 'wvv- . -. ;—wr’ “" '23.,” on) ; Arum; m; A??? .-:.=.' Tux {vd‘fir/Nrwkt‘m arc-:- “Eva: .-‘.’.".nrzr:£~ ’6 5576’ if: 1‘51 ZEN-.5 z; :.3: rvm’vfirtv‘fé H a '1 n .- A, \1! I "' I r ' 4"" :- "03?: :S-JJJfi’m IELP'F‘M'I ‘ Ravi; 42:77.3 -121»me *1: It: w— V ‘ r_ ‘N. \/ . -‘- . -. - p ‘ ‘ “2 " .'-' :T’ 5:. firm-rm”? 1m: 57m. v rin— a .... 1:59:31; '31:" v . \ 1 d “ .' '32:: 3'“??? sauna“: N094"? a: r‘ur: arg- ;: " ; (V. "" 1311?) -' 7’ ‘3 0574.43‘1‘C‘Jzzgrggj- 7.343" ,' - 5.. - - ‘ "" ~ .: .~" ,6; If,- navy: : .12: aortic: .. :Dn‘tzzfortr .33 522::- . I .4 k.- b. . l ‘- .= '7 2‘? Fan f dei- -—~~ ”“125? arr-:7." 22:17:37.2: an" :32: 2:; M: )h? ’ :J‘Tznn‘t: 3mg.) 7 ‘ \flc C - l 'xr .. an mm.” -‘..-‘~. Lassen: r315 :31.) ammo“: .‘5‘ :4..- -:.R.. are": m. .. 5‘1": 3813.73 A __,, V . :~¢;~7:;...: mruml‘m ...:mm g¢1~r¢”&..—1¢~ man !fi‘U’va . £2, .0: -....Stfi'fim P11)? 73..” m ”UV-:.3" 212176772357 rqu‘ng -Ai.-‘ SJ! ‘0'”2‘: u :41 6 ,’ :-?-*?77UJ'TCB W33“ mg: 1' ain't? :52" :1 MN ‘ U H l’ 0.] 30"” READING 17‘9“ 33¢)??? 0'57“!) — '5 FUN! Espafiol Values estar my am dictum 11 IS: dc octubrc. Por favor anotcn can taunt important“ en su calcndario. méfl‘u‘ 2 dc octubro - Junta de Mural "Como Preparing pm um Conferencn active" Esta junta can on difezcntas mic-as incluso camel. Padilla: que “nun tandem 1n: paints. Sal-anodeudeoct e-Ladn Saldrintupnnoala 1:15 para coon-rennin dc E: y mstru. Contestant“ ¢e mamas dres m, M 3; octubrc - conhroncits individual.- en inqlcs. Barres, 15 dc aetubre -Hhong - conferenciu individual“ y en grupo. miracles. 16 de octubre — lime: - conferenciu m'm m. IThoctuhn -Ilpm1- Mummy an grain. , . Vierncs. 18 d: cumin-c - Lao, tetra-cs, Minn, Men conferencing individualc: En la emu “*1 mos 1a participacisn dc codes 105 padres. ms co ucir tn snuestraa juntas on 155 1:11am: de todas nuestras funilias. Ill-qua [1 ”(mac no hat-ti: A red“ m m: Est imados Padres . LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Allen, Patrick, Maria Frohlich and Nina Spada. "The Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching." is ur e Anal i in Language Aeguisitien Researeh. Ed. D. Larsen-Freeman. 1984. 165-187. Atwell, Nancy, ed. Coming tQ Knew: Writing te Learn in the Intermediate grades. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1990. Au, K., and]. Jordan. "Social Organizational Factors in Learning to Read: The Balance of Rights Hypothesis." W 17.1 (1981): 115-152. Baker, Keith, and Christine Rossell. "The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education." Research 111' the Ieaehm g Qf English 30.1 (1996): 7- 74. Barik, Henri C., and Merrill Swain. "Three-Year Evaluation of a Large Scale Early Grade French Immersion Program: The Ottawa study." W 25.1 (1975): 1-30. Barnes, Douglas. "Knowledge as Action." Lightfoot, Martin and Nancy Martin, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc 1988. Beardsmore, Hugo B., and Iurgen Kohls. "Immediate Pertinence in the Acquisition of Multilingual Proficiency: The European Schools. " Ihe -. -. . - _- 1 44.2 (1988): 240-260. Benninga, Jacques 5., ed. WWWM: W. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 1991. -- and Phyllis Kuehn W W. Fresno, CA: California State Univerisity.1992. Bereiter, Carol, and Siegfried Engelmann.Ieaehjng_D1§admtaged W. Englewood Cliffs, N]: Prentice-Hall. 1966. 268 269 Bernstein, Basil. "Some Sociological Determinants of Perception." British Iournal of Sociology 9 (1958): 159-174. - "A Public Language: Some Sociological Implications of a Linguistic Form." British IQurnal Qf Seeielegy 10 (1959): 311-326. - "Language and Social Class." British leurnal ef Meg); 11 (1960): 271-276. -—-. l. 00‘ nd mnterl. :Thw‘rti al udi __oward a o 1100_ V" Qf Language. Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1970. .1 I'lf .Vl" Bild, Eva-Rebecca, and Merrill Swain. "Minority Language Students in a French Immersion Programme: Their French Proficiency." leumal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develepment 10.3 (1989): 255-275. Boomer, Garth. "The English Teacher, Research and Change 1966-1980." Paper presented at the International Conference on the Teaching of English (3rd, Sydney, Australia, August 17-22, 1980). 15 pages. Brooks, J. G. and M. G. Brooks. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1993. Brown, Ann L., and]. C. Campione. "Communities of Learning and Thinking, or A Context by Any Other Name. " W Qexelepmenj. Vol. 21. Ed. D. Kuhn. Basel, Karger,1990.108-126. "Interactive Learning Environments and the Teaching of Science and MathematiCS" WWW Eds M Gardner, 1. G. Greeno, F. Reif, A. H. Schoenfeld, A. Disessa and E. Stage. 1990. 111-139. --, and A. S/ Palinscar. "Guided Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition. W .Ed. Lauren B. Resnick 1989. 393-451. Brown, Cynthia. ":Appendix Literacy in 30 Hours: Paulo Freire' 5 Process in Northeast Brazil " WM m. Ed. Ira Shor. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook/Heinemann. 1987. Brown, Rexford G. W San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1991. Brunner, Diane Dubose. WWW 270 Practice of Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 1994. Canale, Michael, and Merrill Swain. "Communicative Approaches to Language Teaching and Testing." Review and Evaluation Bulletins 1.5 (1979). Ontario: Ministry of Education. Caplan, Nathan, Marcella H. Choy and John K. Whitrnore. "Indochinese Refugee Families and Academic Achievement." Seientifie American February 1992: 36-42. ---, et. al. The Beat Peeple and Achievement in Ameriea: A tu fFamil Lif Hard WerkI and Cultural Values. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1989. Cazden, Courtney. Child Language and Edugation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1972. Cazden, Courtney. Classreem Diseeurse: The Language ef leaehjgg and Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1988. Chall,J., V. Jacobs and L. Baldwin. R adin i i : ' r a1 Behind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1990. Churchill, Stacy. "A Study of Educational Policy Making and Its Impact on Minority Education." du ati n f i i ti nd Cultural Minerig'es. College-Hill Press. 1986. ---. Ciiil_cl_Langy_age_aud_E_ducation New York, NY: Holt. Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1972. Clay. Marie MJMWMM Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1991. Collier, Virginia. "A Synthesis of Studies Examining Long-Term Language Minority Student Data on Academic Achievement." Compendium W. Eds. Gustavo Gonzalez and Lento Maez. Washington, DC: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Spring 1995. Cook-Gumperz, I. and Gumperz, I. "Changing Views of Language in Education and the Implications of Literacy Research: An Interactional Sociological Perspective. Occasional Paper No. 23, Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing, Univ. of CA, Berkeley. 1990. 271 - "Changing Views of Language in Education: The Implications for Literacy Research." Beach, R., J. Green, M. Kamil and T. Shanahan, Eds. Multidiseiplinary Perspeetives en Literacy Researeh. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 1992. Cortes, Carlos E. "The Education of Language Minority Students: A Conceptual Interaction Model." Beyend Language: Seeial andCulmral Eaeters in Seheeling Language Minerity Students. California State University, Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. 1986. Covey, Stephen R. The Seven Habits ef Highly Effective PeOple. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 1989. ; Cuban, Larry. wT a r Tau ht: n tan and han 'n Ameri an Classreems 1880-1220. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cummins, Jim. "Through the Looking Glass: What Really Happens in 1 an Immersion Classroom." lgterehange en Edueatienal Beliey 13.2 1982.: 5 40-44. - "Language Proficiency, Biliteracy and French Immersion." Canadian ledrnal _o_f Eddeatien 8.2 (1983): 117-138. --. "Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention." flamed W312 561 (1986): 18-36- Cziko, Gary, Wallace E. Lambert and Richard Gutter. "French Immersion Programs and Students' Social Attitudes: A Multidimensional Investigation." W 4.2 (1979): 19-30. Daniels, Harvey, Ed. ' ' ° ° r l Hentege. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 1990. Deal, Terrence E. "Educational Change: Revival Tent, Tinkertoys, Jungle or Carnival?" Iesehgsfieflegefiecmd 86.1 (1984): 124-137. Delpit, Lisa D. "The Silenced Dialogue. Power and Pedagogy 1n Educating Other People' 5 Children." W 58.3 (1988): 280-298. Day, Elaine, and Stan M. Shapson. "Integrating Formal and Functional Approaches to Language Teaching in French Immersion: An Experimental Study." LanguageLemm’ng 41.1 (1991): 25-58. Dodson, C. J. "Bilingualism, Language Teaching and Leaming." W 21.1 (1983): 3-8. 272 Dyson, Anne Haas. Multiple Worlds of Child Writers: Friends Learning to Write. New York: Teachers College Press. 1989. --. "Weaving Possibilities: Rethinking Metaphors for Early Literacy Development." Occasional Paper No. 19, Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing, Univ. of CA, Berkeley. 1990. - "The Case of the Singing Scientist: A Performance Perspective on the 'Stages' of School Literacy." Technical Report No. 53. Center for the Study of Writing, Univ. of CA, Berkeley. 1991. Erickson, Frederick. "Transformation and School Success: "The Politics and Culture of Educational Achievement." Anthrepelegy end Educatien fldartetly 18 (1987): 335-356. Fass, Paula. Chapters 1 and 2. thsidejndylmutiesdgd the Iransfermatieg Qt American Eddcatjett. Oxford University Press. 1989. Fullan, Michael G. w anin f u ai a1 . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 1991. ---. "Visions That Blind." Eddcadenal Leadership 49.5 (1992): 19-20. Fung, Bevon. Supervising Planner, City of Fruitville, California. 16 Aug. 1995. Telephone interview. Gee, James P. "What1s Literacy?" Shannon, Patrick (Ed.) _Becqmingmtticel; WWW Portsmouth NH: Heinemann. 1992. Genesee, Fred. "Acquisition of Reading Skills in Immersion Programs." W 12.1 (1979): 71- 77. --. "Second Language Learning Through Immersion: A Review of U S Program"Eexmo_Edusat1onaLResearsh Winter 1985. 55. 4 (1985): 541-561. "The Baby and the Bathwater or What Immersion Has to Say about Bilingual Education: Teaching and Learning in Bilingual Education-Significant Immersion Instructional Features." N_A_BE Mal 10.3 (1986): 227-254. ..., N. E. Holobow, W. E. Lambert, and L. Chartrand. "Three Elementary School Alternatives for Learning Through a Second 273 Language." The Modern Language leurnal 73.3 (1989): 250-263. Gibbs, Nancy. "Shades of difference." Time 138.20 (1991): 66-70. Gibson, Margaret and John Ogbu, eds. "Immigrant and Involutary Minorities in Comparative Perspective." Min ri tatu and h lin . New York, NY: Garland Publishing Co. 1991. Giroux Henry A "Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis." Harvard Educatienal Review 53.3 (1983): 257-293. --. "Series Introduction' Literacy, Difference, and the Politics of Border Crossing." 1 Mitchell, Candace and Kathleen Weiler (Eds). Rewriting Literacy: Culture end the Discedrse Qf the Other. New York: Bergin and Garvey. 1991. --. "Critical Literacy and Student Experience: Donald Graves' Approach to Literacy." Shannon, P. (Ed.) Beceming Pelitical: Readings and Writldgs in the Pelitics ef Literacy Education. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc. 1992. -- and R. Simon. WWI; New York: Bergin and Garvey. 1989. ['3' Gold, Norman. California Dept. of Education. 21 Aug. 1995. Telephone interview. Gonzalez, Gustavo. "Spanish Language Acquisition Research Among Mexican- American Children: The Sad State of the Art." W311 (matted): 6 (1991) 411-425 Compendiumtfieseamhmfiilmgual. Lem. Eds. Gustavo Gonzalez and Lento Maez,Washington, D. C.: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Spring 1995. Goodman, Kenneth. What's Whele m Whele Leggdege? Exeter, NH: Heinemann. 1986. --, E. B. Smith, R. Meredith and Y. Goodman. Languageandlhmmginichool. W New York: Richard C Owen 1987. Grimes, Elena V. 21 Nov. 1991. Personal interview. --, ed. SB 1274 Grant Proposal for Garcia Elementary School. 1991. -—-, ed. "School Restructuring: A Proposal for 1992-1997." SB 1274 Grant Proposal for Garcia Elementary School. May 1992. 274 ---, ed. "Armando A. Garcia Elementary School Site Plan, 1992-93." --, ed. "Fruitville Unified School District Annual School Report, Garcia Elementary School." November 1992. ---, ed. "The Garcia Explorer." June 1993 (1): 1. - "Biographical Summary and Statement of Personal and Professional Mission." No date. Grubb, Norton, and Lazerson, Marvin. "Public Responsibilities and Private Gains: The Conflicts Within Schooling." Breken Premises: flew Americans Fail 1 _l_1eir Children. University of Chicago Press. 1988. Gumperz, John and Eduardo Hemandez-Chavez. "A Visit to a California Classroom." Current Teeics in Language: Intredectegt Readings. Ed. Nancy Ainsworth Johnson. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers. 1976. Gundlach, R., M. Farr, and J. Cook-Gumperz. "Writing and Reading in Community." Cellaberatien Threugh Writing end Reading. Ed. A. H. Dyson. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 1989. 91- 130. Hall, G. E., R. C. Wallace and W. E. Dossett. WW f h A ti W'thin u ti n l tituti . Austin, TX: The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The Univ. of Texas. 1973. Hamayan, Else, Fred Genesee and G. R. Tucker. "Affective Factors and Language Exposure in Second Language Learning. Lengeege Learning. 28.2 (1977): 343-366. Harley, Birgit, Patrick Allen, Jim Cummins and Merrill Swain. v .Ontario: Modern Language Centre of the Ontario Institute for Studies 1n Education. 1987. Hawisher, G. and A. Soter, Eds. MW. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press. 1990. Heath Shirley Brice WWW Cemmemnesendfllessmems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983. f’m) 275 --- and L. Mangiola. Children ef Promise: Literate Activig in Lingeistically and Culturally Diverse Classroems. Washington: National Education Association Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy and American Educational Research Association. 1991. ---. "Oral and Literate Traditions Among Black Americans Living in Poverty." Becoming Peliticel: Readings and Wtitings in the Pelitics ef Literacy Educatien. Ed. Patrick Shannon. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1992. Honig, Bill. "Program Advisory to County and District Superintendents." California Dept. of Education. 26 Aug. 1987. Hull, Glynda, and Mike Rose. "Rethinking Remediation: Toward a Social- Cognitive Understanding o f Problematic Reading and Writing." Technical Report N o. 19, Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing, Univ. of CA, Berkeley. 1989. ---, M. Rose, K. L. Fraser and Marisa Castellano. "Remediation as Social Construct: Perspectives from an Analysis of Classroom Discourse." Technical Report No. 44, Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing, University of California, Berkeley. 1991. ---, M. Rose, C. Greenlead, and B. Reilly. "Seeing the Promise of the Underprepared. " WWW 13.1(1991)=6-13, 25. Hymes, Dell. Introduction to Cazden,Hymes, andJohn.E1u1cttens_Qf_Le11g11ege 111_tl1e_C_less_QQn1. New York. Teachers College Press. 1972. Johnson, Nancy Ainsworth. "The Research Non-Basis for 'Restricted Codes"'£umenflopicsinlmg1.1ages.lntm¢uctoryfieadmgs Ed Nancy Ainsworth Johnson. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers. 1976. Johnston, William B. and Arnold H. Packer. W. Indianapolis, IN: The Hudson Institute. 1987. Kutz, Eleanor and Hephzibah Roskelly. : WW. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook Heinemann. 1991. Labov, W. _IheStgdyeLNenstendesznghsh. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 1969. --. "The Study of Language in Social Context." Smdmmfieeecelde 23 (1970): 66-84. 276 - "Competing Value Systems in the Inner-City Schools." Children In and Out of Seheel. Eds. P. Gilmore and A. A. Glatthorn. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 1982. Lake, Douglas. Director of Assessment, Fruitville Unified School District. 16 Aug. 1995. Telephone interview. Langer, Judith A., and Arthur N. Applebee. How Writing Shapes Thinking. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 1987. Liontos, Lynn-Balster. "Transformational Leadership." ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1992. ElflC Digest No. 72. Online. America 1.... Online. 31 July 1996. Lorish, Christopher and William R. Kennedy. "Evaluation of a Teacher- Based Change Project." Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 27-31 Mar. 1978. Loucks Susan WWW %- WWW Diss Univ. of Texas 1975. AnnArbor:UMI,1975. Macedo, Donald. "Foreward" Courts, Patrick L. W Meaning Makers. New York: Bergin and Garvey. 1991. ix-xviii. MacNab, G. L. "French Immersion Programs Across Canada: The Influence of Cumulative Amounts of Time, Starting Age andYearly Time Allotment on the Learning of French." AW W. Research Report 81-12. Ontario. Ottawa Board of Education, Research Centre. 1981. McCarthy, Jane, ed. "Accelerated Schools." Accelerated Schools Project, Stanford, University. 1.2 (1991): 1-15. McDermott, R. A"chieving School Failure: An Anthropological Approach to Illiteracy and Social Stratification." W W. Ed. G. Spindler. Holt, Rinehart. 1974. McKay, Sandra L., and Sarah W. Freedman. "Language Minority Education in Great Britain: A Challenge to Current US. Policy." Occasional Paper No. 24, Center for the Study of Writing, University of California, Berkeley. 1991. Meek, Margaret. W. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. 1987. 277 Morgan, G.A.V. "Yes! We should have bilingual immersion programs: A dialogue with Professor Weininger." Interchange on Educational Policy 13.2 (1982): 44-49. Ogbu, John. "Literacy and Schooling in Subordinate Cultures." Perspectives on Literacy. Southern Eds. Eugene Kintgen, Barry M. Kroll, and Mike Rose. Illinois Univ. Press. 1988. 227-242. Osborn, Marilyn, Patricia Broadfoot, Dorothy Abbott, Paul Croll, and Andrew Pollard. "The Impact of Current Changes in English Primary Schools on Teacher Professionalism." Teachers College Recerd 94.1 (1992): 138-151. Palinscar, A. and A. Brown. "Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities." Cegeitien and Instruction 1.2 (1984): 117-175. Patch, Janis L. "Students' Oral and Written Responses to Classroom Questions." Unpublished paper presented to Dr. Anne Haas Dyson, University of California, Berkeley. 1991. Peckman, Ellen M., and Leila Fiester. Implementing Scheelwide Etejects: An :- Id kf r u a . Washington, DC: US. Department of Education. 1994. Philips, S. U. "Participant structures and Communicative Competence: Warm Springs Children in Community and Classroom." Functiens ef Laegeage ie the Classreem. Eds. Countney Cazden, Dell Hymes and V. Johns. New York: Teachers College Press. 1972. Ramirez, David. "Executive Summary" WW tu 11in r aEarl - xit nand Lat iE Trani na 1 d P fr a C..'ld_enh1 1991 CompendmmfiResearchMmgualEdmmin Eds Gustavo Gonzalez and Lento Maez. The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. George Washington University. Spring 1995. Resnick, D. P. and L. B. Resnick. "The Nature of Literacy: A Historical Exploration. " W. Eds. E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll and M. Rose. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. 1988. Robinson, Jay L. ed. : ‘ , ' : a_r1d Lites-em Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1990. --— and Patricia L. Stock. "The Politics of Literacy." mm W Ed JayL Robinson Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1990. 278 Rosebery, A., B. Warren and F. Conant. "Appropriating Scientific Discourse: Findings from Language Minority Classrooms." The Iournal of Learning Sciences 2.1 (1992): 61-94. Rossell, Christine and Keith Baker. "The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education." Research in the leaching ef English 30.1 (1996): 7-74. Routman, Regie. Invitatiens: Chengleg as Teachers end Learners IS-12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1991. Safty, Adel. "French Immersion and the Making of a Bilingual Society: A Critical Review and Discussion." Canadian leurnal of Educatien 13.2 (1988): 243- 262. '5'“ Secada, Walter. "Educational Equity Versus Equality of Education: An Alternative Conception." W Ed. Walter Secada. New 1 York, NY: The Falrner Press. 1989. l Seda, Ileana, and Shareen Abramson. "English Writing Development of Young, Linguistically Different Learners." rl hi h d ar 5 L, (1990): 379-391. Senge, Peter M. 'ft i ' ' : Ar an t' fh 'n Qrgenizatiee. New York, NY: Doubleday. 1990. Shannon. Patrick. WWW the 11.5. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1990. Shor,Ira,ed. 1‘ ' O ‘ -. 01011.; o, '00. 1,10' . on ‘o. 11:. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton / Cook / Heinemann. 1987. -- and Paulo Freire. . - ' ' ' Ed11_c_tjen. Granby, MA: Bergin and Garvey. 1987. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. "Children of Guest Workers and Immigrants: Linguistic and Educational Issues." Elmelism. Ed. Walter Secada. New York, NY: Academic Press. 1984. S p,olsky Bernard. "Overcoming Language Barriers to Education in a Multilingual World " LanguageandjducationinMultilmguaLSettmgs Ed Bernard Spolsky. College-Hill Press. 1986. Stock, Patricia Lambert. W W. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook 1995. 279 --- and Jay Robinson. "Literacy as Conversation: Classroom Talk as Text Building." Classrooms and Literacy. Ed. David Bloome. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1989. Stuckey, J. Elspeth. The Vielence ef Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton / Cook. 1991. Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Cemite de Bedres de Familia al.v.Th tat rint nd nt f ubli In t u ti n ta. 5 July 1995. Swain, Merrill. "Some Issues in Bilingual Education in Canada." Paper presented at the Symposium on Identite Culturelle et Francophonie dans Les Ameriques, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. 1974. - "Personality Characteristics and Second Language Learning in Young Children: A Pilot Study." Werking Bapers en Bilingualism No. 11. Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 1976a. ---, Sharon Lapkin and Henri Barik. "The Cloze Test as a Measure of Second Language Proficiency for Young Children." Bilingual Education Project, Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 1976. ."School Reform Through Bilingual Education: Problems and Some Solutions in Evaluating Programs." CempexenyeEdecetienfieng/y 22. 3 (1978): 420-433. --. "Bilingual Education for Majority and Minority Language Children." Sted'La mgtdstice 35.1-2 (1981a): 15-33. ---. "Linguistic Expectations: Core, Extended and Immersion Programs." MW 37 3 (1981b) 486-497 —--. "Immersion Education. Applicability for Nonvernacular Teaching to Vernacular Speakers " Smdiemfiecondianaiagmcqumnon 4 1 (1981c): 1-17. --, and Sharon Lapkin. "Canadian Immersion and Adult Second Language Teaching: What's the Connection?" W 73.2 (1989): 153159. Timmons, Elena V. 17 Aug. 1995. Telephone interview. --. 21 Aug. 1995. Telephone interview. *1 280 ---. 17 Mar. 1996. Telephone interview. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Office of Refugee Resettlement. The Hmong Resettlement Study. Washington, DC: April 1985. United States Supreme Court. Lau v. Nichels. 1974. Valdes, Guadalupe. "Introduction, Writing and Reading in the Community." Dyson, A. H. Collaberatien Through Writing and Reading: Explering Possibilities. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 1989. - "Bilingual Minorities and Language Issues in Writing: Toward Profession- Wide Responses to a New Challenge." Technical Report No. 54, Center for the Study of Writing, University of California, Berkeley. 1991. Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Secieg. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1978. Weininger, 0. "Learning a Second Language: The Immersion Experience and the Whole Child." Interchange en Edecatieeal Pelicy 13.2 (1982a): 20-40. - "Through a Glass Darkly: The Need for Dialogue on the Immersion Experience." Interchange ee Edecatjenel Belicy 13.2 (1982b): 49-53. Wexler, Philip. "Part Two: After the New Sociology of Education." SecJeL Analysis ef Edecaden: Aftet the New fizcielegy. Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1987. 49-120. Willinsky,J. Th Nw ' - -- New York: Routledge.1990. Wills, Gary. "Close-up: Two Boom Towns." lime 138.20 (1991): 66-68, 98. Wong Filhnore, Lily and C. Valadez. "Teaching Bilingual Learners." Wittrock, M., Ed. WWW Third Ed. New York: Macmillan. 1986. --. "When Learning a Second Language Means Losing the First." Eedy WW2 6 (1991): 323-346- - "Against Our Best Interest: An Attempt to Sabotage Bilingual Education." Crawford,J. Ed. W11. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1992. Wood, Dean. 25 Mar. 1996. Personal interview. 281 ---. "The Development of Teacher Enhancement Activities Based Upon Indicators of Institutionalization of an Exemplary Science Curriculum." Proposal submitted to Teacher Preparation and Enhancement, National Science Foundation. Used with permission. 1993. V? L "1111111111 Illlllll ES 651