Teachers in Post-Proposition-227 Southern California: Implications for Teacher Education.

This work reports on the implications of Proposition 227, a language policy replacing bilingual education with one year of English immersion in Southern California, on bilingual teacher candidates in a California State University Certification Program. An action-research, collaborative case study approach was used to examine the implications of the restrictive language policy for postgraduates. Data included the student narratives from weekly journals of emergency permit teachers, case studies of second language learners, observations of student teachers, and focused student teaching seminars in 1998-1999. The results were used to revise curricula to address specific issues raised by the students concerning teaching beginning speakers of English. The study suggests that Bilingual Credential Programs need to understand the following: a) how language policies affect the larger society, b) what revisions must be considered in teacher education courses, and c) that students in Bilingual Education programs must focus on two visions: short range compliance with 227 and Structured English Immersion; and the ideal education for societal bilingualism through dual language immersion.

The aftermath of Proposition 227, which replaced bilingual education with one year of English immersion affected the entire state of California like a tidal wave. English learners were no longer able to begin reading and learning subject matter in the language of their homes. Schools began a multitude of alternative programs, ranging from continued teaching in two languages by waiver, to limited primary language use, to sometimes tearfully incomprehensible English-only teaching. This article documents emergent themes on the new language policy as expressed by young bilingual teachers earning a bilingual credential while working with language minority children. The designation for such professionals in progress is "Emergency Teachers" and the California certification they seek is the Bilingual Cross-Cultural Language and Academic Development Credential, or BCLAD. These data were gathered during the 1998-1999 program year at California State University, Long Beach.

Two core elements of the BCLAD are teaching methods for literacy in two languages and a teaching practicum. These ultimately verify the demonstration of linguistic competency in Spanish and the facilitation of literacy development in appropriate social-cultural contexts. The first is accomplished through a course, Bilteracy Development (EDEL 452B), and the second is slightly misnamed Student Teaching Practicum (EDEL 482B/C), since 90 percent of the students have been employed teachers for one to several years. The assignments in these requirements are more than exercises and the Student Teaching Seminar frequently serves as a sharing session for presenting pedagogically appropriate lessons in Spanish and English that have immediate usefulness.

To reflect upon academic and linguistic instructional issues, students are asked to conduct case studies of emergent readers using the dimensions of assessment, instruction and evaluation in the student's primary language and English. What follows is derived from their efforts, concerns, successes and reflections. A brief background statement concerning the context of Proposition 227 may set the tone for the pressures felt and expressed by the respondents. Although the sponsors of Proposition 227, Ron Unz and Gloria Matta Tuchman, repeatedly stated that English Language Education for Immigrant Children, (the heading for the new California Educational Code 300), was not an anti-immigrant issue, many saw it as further evidence of isolationism and the repression of diversity. Earlier propositions had taken aim at services for undocumented persons (Prop. 187 in 1994), and affirmative action access for minority candidates in higher education and employment (Prop. 209 in 1996). It seemed to some more than a coincidence--to others a clear conspiracy--that Prop. 227 in 1998 was attacking the language of diverse peoples as the earlier propositions had targeted their nationality and ethnicity. For Latinos, especially Mexican Americans, education, a main avenue to participation in the mainstream was being closed rather than opened. Other non-white ethnic groups were also negatively affected by the illusion that the playing field was already level. On the one hand, laws implied that it was easy to learn English, that everyone could have a chance and that American citizens should benefit from life in the US. On the other hand, segregated neighborhoods prevented access to English interaction, the economic divide between haves and have-nots had undeniable color lines, and persons suspected of being undocumented or fitting other stereotyped criminal descriptions were increasingly stopped, detained and killed in Southern California. Young teachers, vulnerable in the educational system because of their lack of certification and tenure, like many of the parents of the children they served, were less openly cynical. They wanted to conform to the new regulations in English for the Children, as 227 was known. (See Attinasi 1998 for a fuller discussion of the statute and controversies surrounding its passage).

Of course, the climate in each school and the stance of each teacher varied tremendously. The key provision of 227 was extremely general: "that all children in California public schools shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible." Prior to 227, California had several bilingual education laws and regulations reviewing the compliance of educational programs with state and federal law. Not only had there been a long bilingual education tradition dating from the 18th and 19th centuries, but laws and Supreme court decisions had established the need for assessment of students and placement in appropriate programs. Further, students' progress needed documentation so that Limited English Proficient (LEP) children could be redesignated as Fluent English (FEP) and able to participate in the mainstream classroom (English Language Learners, ELL, formerly known as LEP, are classified from level 1, non-English to level 5, fluent, eligible for redesignation).

Schools found themselves in a quandary: how could they comply with the new education code and deliver comprehensible instruction, which was a federal mandate established decades earlier? The teachers were also hearing contradictory messages. International and national research on language acquisition for minority students recommended gradual transition into a new language and culture, retaining the links to home and heritage (Skutnabb Kangas 1985, Brisk 1998). The approach promoted by 227, however, was a monolingual teaching method, using English for nearly 100 percent of the time, called Structured English Immersion. This misrepresented the term "immersion," which had gained a positive reputation as a means to full literacy in two languages (Cummins 1996, 1999). Whatever the program, the most significant factor for success was consistency of approach (Gersten, 1985 & Cummins, 2000), a feature that was jeopardized by the uncertainty regarding how to implement 227.

Inconsistency came from several sources. The bilingual program was declared eliminated, yet the BCLAD credential was to remain. In fact the CLAD credential and based on modern research in literacy, language development, cross-cultural interaction is preferred under 227. The state board of Education wanted to adhere to the 60-day timetable for implementation stated in the statute, but some schools knew that putting materials, staff and schedules into place would take longer. Identification of language was to continue, but the 30-day window for assessment and assignment of students was also too brief. It was not certain what instruction students should receive during the 30 days. Lastly, the period for Structured English instruction was mandated to last 180 days, one academic year. No one could guarantee enough fluency for students to enter the mainstream classroom and begin to take the curriculum and high-stakes standardized tests after that period. In fact, prior studies (Cummins 1981) and more recent research (CERC 1997, Hakuta 2000) showed that the acquisition of fluency took approximately three years and that academic: language was a matter of seven or more years of special accommodation.

The Emergency Permit Teachers (EPTs) in this study were teaching in schools that adopted the Structured English approach. The 1998-99 year was the first year of post-227, and schools had moved quickly to implement programs. Many of the issues were in ferment and inconsistencies unresolved. Schools could not respond thoughtfully, but had to respond. Students bore the burden of these inconsistencies and voiced them in their reflections. For instance, they contended that they received vague, confusing guidelines when they asked how much and under which circumstances the primary language, Spanish, was to be used with non-English (level 1) or emergent English language learners (level 2 or 3).

This action research case study was therefore designed to document issues, concerns, and implications of Structured English Immersion for second language learners, and teachers enrolled in the CSULB BCLAD program in the era of Prop. 227. As action research, the design provided a dialogical forum for students and faculty to reflect on teaching and the use of language in post-Proposition 227 contexts. Ethical and educational dilemmas were constantly negotiated with great concern to avoid compromising the integrity of the BCLAD credential. The voices of teachers represented in this study document initial and subsequent experiences in seven school districts in Southern California. As Emergency Permit teachers, the BCLAD students interpreted the programmatic changes according to their level of teaching experience and their previous assignments in bilingual classrooms. At this preliminary stage of post-227 education in the most linguistically diverse region of California and perhaps the US, certain themes have emerged and the more salient issues will be reported in the discussion section of this article.

Methodology

The action-research in the collaborative case study mode draws from a variety of data sources on the challenges, questions and dilemmas in classrooms which were previously designated as bilingual allowing Spanish literacy, content instruction and interaction. The data include the narratives from weekly journals of emergency permit teachers, case studies of second language learners in the Biliteracy Course (452B); observations of student teachers, and focused student teaching seminars during Spring semester, 1999

The sample includes five emergency permit teachers and one preservice student teacher. Students were consulted on the proposed project. They agreed on the need to examine the daily issues that emerge in Post Proposition 227 classrooms and their implication for teacher education. The article concludes implications for changes to the BCLAD Teacher Education Program at CSULB.

The study used an action-research case study approach. Action research is applied research in which the researchers and subjects of research are one, closely collaborating in the definition, design, interpretation and follow-up of the research. Corey (1953:141) noted that a key aspect of action research was the role of practitioners using research to improve their practice. Action research differs from traditional educational research in three ways: 1) It is often less sophisticated, avoiding complicated statistical techniques; 2) is used primarily to solve problems; and 3) findings from action research are particular to the setting and should not be generalized to other situations without caution. Among the goals of educational action research, Glanz (1998: 21-22) outlined change-orientation, decision facilitation and empowerment. Research designed and carried out by those immediately affected creates an institutional mindset of inquiry and change. The findings of action research are not just academic knowledge, but rather enhance decision-making and in schools create a positive climate in which the outcomes of teaching and learning are foremost. Finally, action research is empowering, giving its participants the knowledge and skills needed to view policy and practice critically. Theories, innovations and programs "based in research" can no longer mystify teachers and administrators who themselves struggle with the details and variation in research data. Noffke (1998), and Noffke and Stevenson (1998) emphasize the role of educational action research in democratic schooling. The involvement of participants in the investigation, framing questions, gathering data and analyzing results is a technique for looking critically at school activities. The results, in this case are intended to help improve teacher education and inform teaching for social justice generally.

The implications of 227 concern both policy in schools and practice in classrooms; therefore, the study was designed in two phases. The first phase was documentation, aimed at finding out the climate of schools and developing the voices of emergency permit teachers as they interacted with administrators and parents in the various schools. Students were asked to collect written guidelines from their districts if available, and to describe the social climate and responses of students and adults. No names would not be made public, to protect people, the school site, and the employment of people who were no doubt exploring ways to comply with a new and difficult law. Teacher narratives recounted the instructions they were given to implement Structured English Immersion programs in the schools, plus their own interpretation of the guidelines and any reflections they wanted to include.

Documentation in this phase of the study also included case studies of second language learners/emergent readers over a period of six weeks. This task, grounded in the biliteracy course, urged the EPTs to gain additional insight into practical classroom concerns. The results of this documentation served as an informal evaluation of the biliteracy course, as well. Concerns and discussions became the basis for specific changes made to the biliteracy course, and to the student teaching seminar.

The second phase of the study was analysis: of journal entries from EPTs during student teaching; student narratives on the provisions of 227; the guidelines from school districts; and case studies of second language learners, mentioned earlier. The analysis of this documentation was corroborated with observations of three student teachers in each of two semesters, and focused discussions in the BCLAD seminar. Participants in the study were Latinas, with the exception of one Latino male EPT. Of the 35 methods students and student teachers who participated in the case study, 31 were teaching on Emergency Permit.

Macro-Macro Level Language Policy

At a macro-social level, Proposition 227 created an abrupt departure from Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE), which had been the predominant program for about one third of English Language Learners (ELLs) in California. (Other options included English Language Development, or ELD, serving about 40% of ELLs, with or without bilingual teacher assistants; approximately 20% of California's ELLs were in classrooms with no special services of any type. Source: LMRI 1998).

The mandate to use only English was found in sixteen words of the proposition: "All children in California public schools shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible." (Proposition 227: English Language Education For Immigrant Children; Education Code: Part I, Chapter 3, Article 1, section 300).

The implementation of this declaration at the micro level, to instruct ELLs at early stages of second language acquisition, was nearly traumatic for Emergency Permit bilingual teachers. An abstract law, their personal experiences as bicultural citizens and the need to retain their tenuous employment pulled them in different directions. Eliminating the use of primary language caused fear, indignation, and great concern for the children. Whereas, TBE used the native language for both early literacy and content area instruction when children were at the beginning levels of English proficiency, Proposition 227 clearly abolished the use of home language. Article 2, Section 305, unequivocally stated that:

   All children in California public schools shall be taught English by being
   taught in English ... that all children be placed in English language
   classrooms. [and that] children who are English learners shall be educated
   though sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not
   normally intended to exceed one year (Article 2, Section 305).

Bilingual personnel, many of whom were EPTs studying in credential programs, were expected to shift to an all-English program within a 2-3 month time period. This policy change posed an enormous challenge to teachers who were students in the courses, and to university program faculty. The group of teachers who formed the sample for this study had been using Spanish to teach Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics and the content areas. Early in the implementation phase of Structured English Immersion, (SEI), teachers reported enormous confusion, both from their schools and about their practice. BCLAD teachers reported anti-bilingual criticisms, and in one case, a teacher felt professionally assaulted. In an unannounced visit, a parent interrupted her teaching to remind her that the new state law prohibited the use of Spanish in the classroom. Other teachers reported how they were given little guidance, but simply told to focus on English by following handbooks on Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), for content area teaching. Districts seemed to vary greatly in the insistence with which they directed teachers to not use Spanish (Attinasi, 1998).

Some of the EPTs taught in districts where a large number of parents exercised the right to have children in bilingual programs by waiver. Parents and teachers were relieved not to have English Immersion Programs for one year. The waiver provided the school with time to design a plan that would work for their community. Interpretation of Structured English Immersion legislation seemed to be largely contingent on the school's subsequent commitment and community support to provide students with an appropriate education context to understand what they are being taught.

Narratives from Bilingual Methods Students (Fall 1998)

Teachers in the first term after passage of 227, the Fall 1998 Biliteracy Methods course, were asked to describe the training and information they were receiving for the implementation of "English for the Children" in their schools. All of the narratives in this section come from EPTs previously working in Transitional or Two-Way developmental bilingual programs. The themes excerpted in their narratives implicitly address features of Prop. 227.

Theme 1: Minimal Modification. Many schools found 227's article 7, requiring implementation within 60 days, too restricting. Thus, some teachers were told to continue using Spanish and add ELD. In effect, this meant minimal change in the classroom between the 1997-98 school year which ended in June, when the proposition passed and the 1998-99 year which began in August, 60 days later.

   "My principal has told me to keep instructing in Spanish. I do ELD for 30
   minutes every day and integrate twice a week with another teacher who has
   an all English classroom. The integration is done with PE and art. I am to
   keep this method until the district develops a proper ELD program. (2nd
   grade EPT) At[my] school Proposition 227 has not changed a lot. The
   principal wants everything to continue pretty much the same in the
   bilingual classes. The only change is that ESL/ELD instruction must be for
   60 minutes a day for grades 1 to 5, and 120 minutes for Kinder classes. She
   [said] not to spend too much time in Spanish books, just in case. I do not
   know as of today of any training for teachers if changes are demanded."
   (2nd grade EPT)

Theme 2: Uncertainty and awkwardness. The abrupt turnabout in the language of instruction, teaching everything in English to non-English speakers, became problematic for some teachers. The proposition contained vague definitions, calling for instruction "overwhelmingly" and "nearly all" in English, "curriculum designed for children who are learning the language" and prohibiting instruction in which "much or all instruction ... and materials are in the child's native language." (Sections 306-310). It was difficult to define "nearly" and "much," and still facilitate student learning.

   9/24/98: "At [my school] all bilingual programs were Spanish two-way
   Immersion and Traditional bilingual classrooms. From the beginning of the
   school year until Oct. 12 both of the above mentioned programs have been
   temporarily changed to ELL classes (English language learners, Structured
   English Immersion). The language spoken in the classroom by the teachers is
   overwhelmingly English. Spanish may be spoken to clarify instruction or
   concept ... The students are at liberty to speak, read, or write in Spanish
   or English. The district has offered two town hall meetings for the local
   community. These meetings explained the proposals reviewed the alternative
   programs. At our school site we have also had one town hall meeting that
   gave parents the same information. However, they also had a form that they
   filled out letting the school know in what program they planned to place
   their child after Oct. 12. There has been no direct information or
   instructions on how or what to teach. Both the district and the school
   administrators are taking all precautions and remaining impartial a very
   quiet (distant) from the whole ordeal. All teachers are interpreting "what
   we assume we are supposed to be doing" in their own words, behind closed
   doors. I believe a lot depends on how much each teacher wants to let the
   students struggle--and many are struggling.

   The environment of the school seems somewhat awkward, there is a lot of
   complaining. Spanish speaking teachers are complaining of insufficient
   resources, too many students struggling (confusing English and Spanish) and
   just the awkwardness of teaching in English. I personally feel awkward
   teaching in English because I don't feel close to my students. Usually,
   when I teach in Spanish I feel closer to my students. I joke around with
   them more easily, the English language just seems too dry!" (2nd Grade EPT)

Theme 3: Changeover distress. Article 2, Section 305, plainly states that students will be "taught English by being taught in English." Fluency and academic mainstreaming after exposure to the English language for one year was not a realistic expectation. Teachers could clarify in Spanish, but were continuously concerned about the need to instruct in English. Waiting for directives has put teachers "in limbo."

   At the school I work at in [my district], bilingual education is still
   there. The school changed the title to English Enrichment. The only grade
   that drastically changed was Kindergarten. They went to an English
   Immersion were Spanish should only be used as Review (support). Every grade
   increased their English time, but beginning in third, they want us to do
   Math in English. Pretty much they announced that in three years bilingual
   education will be phased out. (1st Grade EPT)

   "For [my] district the Kindergarten classes may instruct in Spanish. The
   upper grades, now called "sheltered." We instruct in English and reinforce
   in Spanish. We are waiting until a program is set or there are some set
   guidelines for us to follow. The principal does not seem to be too worded
   and passes the information as long as she gets it. So, we as teachers are
   in "limbo." (Kinder EPT)

   This year, (so far) I can still teach in Spanish with at least 1 hr. of
   English language development. In January, I'll know if I can still teach in
   Spanish or change to English. No training or workshops have been organized
   for 1st gr. teachers as of yet. (1st Grade EPT)

   [My school] is located in [my neighborhood], a very low SES area. Most of
   our students are of Hispanic descent although we do have a large
   Tongan/Afro-American population. Concerning the implementation of 227 most
   of the teachers were kept in the dark. The reason for this is due to the
   District office attempts at looking at the law--what is allowed, not
   allowed, etc.

Theme 4: Rigid Directives. At the opposite end from the uncertainty of teachers and equivocal directives from schools were some schools which issued rules, requiring English to be the language of instruction, even preventing bilingual teacher assistants from speaking anything but English. Two teachers listed the directives they received at their respective schools:

" 1. The Language of Instruction must be English.

2. Primary language of the children can be used only for clarification. Either to clarify directions on an activity, or a lesson.

3. Must provide a lot of ESL support and SDAIE for every limited English proficient student.

4. Literature used to teach must be in English. Children can read a book in their primary language for independent reading time only.

5. No waivers will be given.

6. TA must talk to children in English.

7. Classrooms are divided in two models A & B. Model A ... instruction is done in English. Teachers in a model B classroom must have the BCLAD. (Kinder EPT)"

Another teacher paraphrased the points operating in her school:

" 1. Learn rapidly & effectively as possible ELD," [quoting 227]. [My school] Plans to fully implement 227-Sheltered English, to concentrate on speaking and developing vocabulary and then letters (alphabet).

2. Increase English Language Development (ELD) to 2 hours. Must happen everyday.

3. Must impose ELD standards. Add English labels around the room.

4. K must teach in English everyday.

5. During ELD only English is to be spoken--no primary language support.

6. Kids must try to figure it out (English).

7. Had a parent meeting to inform parent of instructional changes. In Oct. we will have a 31/2 day training on how to teach and use ELD."

Theme 5: Parental exceptions: waivers. The proposition (Article 3, Section 310) allows parents to petition to have children remain in bilingual classrooms. Some schools had hundreds of parents apply for waivers.

"At my school district prop. 227 has been met with unopened [sic] arms. Our district is unique in that they will not hire non-bilingual teachers. And unlike other schools, we have been implementing three bilingual programs. Proposition 227 forces all the responsibility on the parents and in most cases the parents are not well equipped to make informed decisions regarding the future of their teachers. (EPT)"

Recently we were debriefed regarding the actual implementation of 227. The final outcome was a bit overwhelming. Basically, the parents decide what language of instruction their child is taught in. Nov. 1st is considered the first day that all children begin their instruction. Before the student's language was determined by the school using the BSM [Bilingual Syntax Measure] test. If they got a 4 or higher they were placed in English. Anything lower than 4, they were placed in our bilingual transitional program. Now if the child's parent does not specify what language they want they are placed in English, regardless of L1 development. (EPT) At our school, they have sent out flyers on the three options. The principal that retired around the same time predicted that most parents would sign the waiver and things would remain the same. (1st Grade EPT.)

Theme 6: Hope for Alternatives. An implication of the waiver process is that parents (especially parents of children who know English) can petition for an alternative program that teaches both languages in bilingual, or two-way immersion programs. One teacher saw this as a way to continue teaching in Spanish and offer the benefits of developed bilingualism to students.

Our school district has communicated to the teachers that a possible dual-immersion program may be adopted next year. I don't know what will happen. I do know I enjoyed teaching Spanish. I hope the children will not get too frustrated." (2nd Grade EPT)

Two telling notes above epitomize the feelings of teachers: one, which said "no waivers were to be given out," and another, which noted that the children would "have to figure it out." Whether or not these are true directives, they sum up the panic of the first semester. In some cases, the continuation of Spanish use was allowed pending a smooth transition to 227 compliance, in others parents wanted legal avenues to achieve their wishes, and in still others, there was an abrupt change to English-only.

The Student Teaching Practicum Spring 1999

Student teachers were asked to keep journals, and during the second semester after Prop. 227, shared their narratives in seminar meetings. Discussions focused on four main topics: English language development instruction, or ELD; the use of Spanish, the students' primary language, or L1: differences between ELD and SDAIE (specially designed academic instruction in English, also called sheltered content instruction); and the need to teach despite a lack of appropriate materials and resources. The excerpts that follow are from the one traditional student teacher (of 6) in the Spring cohort. The EPTs expressed similar views, but remained in their school of employment throughout the semester. EPTs continued to struggle with the challenges explored in the previous section. The traditional student teacher, however, had two separate placements during the semester, and the opportunity to see Prop. 227 implemented among children with several experiences. The first placement was with students who were taught in two languages and had been previously taught to read and write in both Spanish and English.

1-25: "Today was my first day of student teaching. I'm in a third grade classroom with 19 students at a school in [my school]. The teacher gives her instruction in English, except for one hour of Spanish reading. The students were very friendly. They all seem happy to be in school and eager to learn. The classroom has a lot of charts that serve as references for the students. The writing is in both Spanish and English are sometimes written in both languages."

1-27:" Students have been given instruction in Spanish since the beginning of the day. Since this month, they've been receiving more and more instruction in English. The students appear to comprehend many things, but often the teacher needs to clarify things for them. Today, the students read Grandfather's Dream. The teacher went over the vocabulary ahead of time. The students made a vocabulary book by writing the word and drawing a picture of the word. The students then could refer to their book when needed."

1-28: "I read a story to the students from their history book. The students were able to understand the book because it was in Spanish. They were able to understand and answer the questions that I asked.... It made me feel good to have them enjoy reading with me."

2-26: "I have been thinking about all of the observations I have made throughout these weeks. I don't see a big problem with the student being given instruction in English and I will explain why. The students are in a classroom where the teacher speaks and understands Spanish and she is able to clarify things for them in their primary language. Also, the students are given an opportunity to do all or the majority of their writing assignments in Spanish. When they are having a discussion with the teacher they answer in Spanish and the teacher acknowledges their answers. I do believe that it is a totally different case when the teacher does not understand the language of the student because then there is communication/language barrier. Students in this classroom feel confident because they are able to communicate with their teacher, which is very, very important. Next year may be a totally different case because there is a big possibility that their teacher will not speak their native language and this is where problems may seem to arise."

The comments in this last entry are more eloquent than any textbook. Students need a teacher who understands them and their confidence in taking the risks involved in learning. Whether or not the teacher uses the primary language for instruction, the freedom of students to express themselves and ask

questions--and the ability of the teacher to understand and respond is key. One of the final entries illustrates the confusion that teachers feel when told to use English for instruction, even when the materials and student comprehension are primarily in Spanish.

3/15: "Today was the first day I taught all day. Overall, I was happy with the outcome. One of the hardest things that I experienced was reading The Great Kapok Tree to the students in English. I didn't know if the students understood what I was reading. They had their books in front of them, but their book was in Spanish. Before I read the story, I had the students look throughout the chapter so that they could see the different animals that were in the story. I am somewhat confused at times because I know that direct translation is not recommended, but I feel that I have to say things in both English and Spanish because we have an English only student in the classroom. What should I do?"

Unlike EPTs, traditional student teachers have a second assignment in which they can compare two settings. In journal entries in another classroom, the student teacher compared the third graders of January--March with first graders March--May. The first school had guidelines for a gradual shift to English and supported instruction in the primary language. The second school was different. It was a mainstream school in a middle-class neighborhood, with English language learners bused in from a Latino community. The cooperating teacher, who is bilingual, was teaching only in English. The teacher reported that mainstream parents, who visited her classroom unannounced, had monitored her and reminded her that use of Spanish in the classroom was not permitted.

3/22: "Today was my first day at this new school. It is a first grade classroom with twenty students. The primary language of all the students in the classroom is Spanish. It is my understanding that prior to January the students were being taught in Spanish, but now all instruction is given in English. This school is located in a nice, quiet residential area. In my class, all but two of the twenty students are bused to this school."

3/26: "Today was the first day I instructed the students in a subject area. I began a unit of measurement. I had planned to give the lesson in English, but for some reason I directed the entire lesson in Spanish. The English level of these students is low and it made me uncomfortable to speak in a language that they couldn't understand well enough. Afterwards, I spoke to the teacher about my lesson and she said that I had done everything correctly. She had no problem with me giving that lesson in Spanish."

3/30: "In this classroom all of the 20 students but one boy have some English vocabulary. This little boy has a difficult time understanding English. It worries me because his writing and reading in Spanish has not fully developed. He had a difficult time with it, and now that he is being instructed in English, I worry that he will give up. This class is very different from my previous assignment. The other class was a third grade class where all the students had already learned to read and write in Spanish. The transition into English didn't have as big an impact as it appears to have on these first graders. The first graders were just getting use to reading and writing in Spanish when they had to switch to English only. I've noticed that when their teacher is giving a lesson, or I'm giving my math lesson, students have a difficult time staying focused. I'm wondering if it is because they don't understand everything that is being said."

Research on bilingual students (CERC 1998, Hakuta 2000) supports the notions expressed in this journal. Students with firm literacy development in the home language can accommodate a switch to English instruction much better than those whose literacy development is interrupted. The consequences are not only academic but emotional. The third graders" had already learned to read and write in Spanish." but the first graders were not developed in either language. After Kindergarten and the fall of first grade developing Spanish literacy, their development was interrupted. They seem not to understand and cannot focus. As cognitive tasks become more difficult, students run the risk of becoming literate in neither language (Cummins 1996, Brisk 1998, Skutnabb-Kangas 1984).

Ethical and pedagogical issues: Implications for Curricular Reorganization

At this juncture, two years after the passage of Prop. 227, several themes and dilemmas of pedagogy confront society, novice teachers, and the teacher preparation programs that serve both. These not only relate to techniques, language allocation and materials, but professional responsibility as well. Ethical issues emerged throughout the 1998-99 academic year for both faculty and students. These ethical considerations affected the role of teachers whose professional expertise was devalued and undermined. On the one hand, the new English-only policy directly restricted the freedom of teachers to draw from students' cultural and linguistic experiences. On the other hand, EPTs who taught in school districts with bilingual options were less pressured but felt equally challenged by Proposition 227.

The themes articulated in both semesters, of uncertainty, restriction and hope illustrate the moral professionalism that young teachers have tried to maintain. The law was unrealistically simple, and teachers struggled to comply. Nevertheless, to respond to the needs of the second language learners in schools both faculty and students positioned themselves in an antithetical role. The immediate response was critical inquiry: to talk through and identify ways in which the bilingual teacher candidates could adhere to bilingual education philosophy while struggling with a new policy climate. This meant finding ways to address the needs of second language learners, keeping academic progress, language development and student motivation foremost. The challenge to implement the new undefined program on students who are Spanish speaking with minimal exposure to English, however, was seen as a monumental task. Prior to 227, the EPTs had come to expect learning in the second language (English) to be developmentally possible once the students were literate in their primary language (Spanish). Building on a conceptual and skill base of primary language, the teacher preparation program taught them to add English to Spanish. The new educational code changed this approach. The students turned to the faculty to learn which was right, the bilingual development view or the English immersion view. The theoretical debate was very practical (Cummins 2000, Brisk 1998).

Teachers in this study had learned of the educational changes in ways that appear to resemble the linguistic and social marginalization of their communities. The development of Structured English Immersion (SEI) programs and the way they were communicated to the teachers were significant aspects of the process. Schools that did not traditionally support transitional or alternative developmental bilingual education were adamant in restricting the use of Spanish. Many EPTs found the guidelines to be categorical regarding the switch to English, but vague and non-useful regarding the primary language. In contrast, schools with organized and alternative bilingual education programs were able to communicate a less threatening approach to the changeover to SEI. Some opted to wait and to continue transitional bilingual education until they could develop a new plan; others allowed teachers to use their judgment, the materials at hand and monitor student response and progress. The notion of schools creating alternative bilingual responses encouraged the emergency permit teachers. In sum, teachers were more eager to comply when their concerns were heard, more resistant when the new policy was rigidly imposed.

The factors of school climate, teacher consultation and the variables of student development had implications for the methods course and the seminar. The students were directed to plan short-range goals for both SEI and the primary language. They developed long-range goals for dual language bilingual immersion. These tasks enabled the teachers to maintain perspective amid language policies in flux. They supported their views by reflecting on principles of language development and reading research in national and international settings.

Through dialogue and reflection on the results of the action research data, the teachers, students and university faculty identified seven needs for themselves and the BCLAD teacher certification program.

1. Primary Language Support. In the era of 227, new teachers need to know how much Spanish to use to clarify. How is primary language for clarification different from Bilingual Education? Is clarification the same as translation?

2. ELD Instructional Strategies. Since English mastery is paramount, what materials and methods are appropriate to develop English? How does one connect education to reach ELD standards with the achievement of general language arts standards (Wiley & Hartung-Cole 1998)?

3. SDAIE Strategies. Teachers need to move beyond teaching English in itself and teach content area lessons through the medium of English. This requires developing a knowledge of what thresholds are required for content teaching in English, and what skills are needed to control vocabulary, allow extra time and address multiple avenues of teaching and learning.

4. Lesson Planning. Teacher preparation needs to address both long- and short-range planning. This includes thematic unit planning to connect math, science, social studies and literacy. Literature searches were diversified for these purposes (see 7, below). Teachers underlined the need for comprehensible input, using both languages in previewing concepts, reviewing, and assessing learning. This preview/review method, used in dual language classrooms, is also useful with English learners. Students focusing on subject matter hear a key concept in the primary language, then the lesson is developed in English, and finally completed with a review of the main points in Spanish to ensure comprehension.

5. Classroom Management. This discussion focused less on management tricks and more on sociocultural continuity. Teachers who are bicultural, or bilingual, or both, can use shared identity and motivation as a bridge to learning in a difficult situation. Students struggled with the use of Spanish with students like themselves, as opposed to a sense of betrayal felt by students and loss of interest when a bilingual teacher does not acknowledge shared identity. The teachers emphasized the constructivist notion of connection between cultural values, experiences and personal development in bicultural situations (Dewey, 1897, and Freire, 1992). The teachers also saw an opportunity for cultural continuity and awareness in the choice of multicultural books (see 7).

6. Homework Strategies with Parents. The seminar focused on the possibility of educational partnership with parents whether or not they know English. The teachers noted that providing bilingual materials, whether information or books, encouraged parents to take a greater interest in schooling.

7. Lack of resources and materials in ELD/ SDAIE. The methods course and student teaching seminar explored appropriate resources, books and learning materials, using the Internet, tradebook and textbook publishers. Students found books in the primary language, books in two languages and English language books with multicultural themes to provide supplemental reading. This enabled young teachers to keeping up-to-date on materials and plan units that were culturally respectful, inclusive and multidisciplinary.

Additionally, the seminar in the spring term was reorganized to provide a clearer focus on the assessment of second language learners. Language, literacy and content assessment were three areas of focus. The seminar served as the forum for teachers to ask for guidance in their use of primary language and English in the SEI program. Implicit in the discussions was a need for recommendations regarding the balance between primary language use and English development. Participants recognized that professional bilingual skills are an advantage for student and family communication, even in English-only settings. Also, students requested more clarification on first and second language acquisition strategies. This may be an overture for further professional development at the Master's level. Teachers also needed to be more critical in understanding the implications of teaching methods, whether Spanish, bilingual or English-only. This discussion became a useful tool for the teachers in negotiating a fuller understanding of what makes input comprehensible. Teachers in more restrictive schools, where they were told to use minimal primary language, wondered if preview and review would be regarded as bilingual education.

Conclusion: implications for society, schools and teacher preparation

From the case study data and the priorities developed by teachers and university faculty, several remarks may be directed to society in general, schools and teacher preparation programs. The first two groups have wider agendas. The third, preparation of teachers for the profession, has an agenda that this article can directly change. We conclude, therefore, with ideas for the general public and schools to consider, and a concrete agenda for bilingual teacher preparation.

Thoughtful members of the public, whether parents, voters or policy makers should hear the voices of teachers in classrooms with English learners and be more realistic regarding the process of second language acquisition. Just as the English-speaking adult finds it difficult to acquire another language at an economically productive level, English learners face tremendous difficulties that should be appreciated and accommodated. The segregation of society, more a de facto compartmentalization than apartheid law, makes English learning harder, though no less a priority, in the US. Businesses recognize the economic and political value of bilingualism; society needs to take the leap of recognition that language resources in centers like California and the cities of the East and Midwest must be developed. Valuing cultural traditions, encouraging positive acculturation and developing language minority students into biliterate members of US society can do this. For the English speaking population learning another language, supporting equity and integration can be accomplished through two-way bilingual programs. In such programs, children come together, learn each other's speech, literature and ways of life.

For schools, a review of current successes and failures in second language development (Hakuta, et al. 2000) recommends that the entire elementary experience be devoted to ELD and academic development for English learners. This means that whether we rescue the noble goal of Prop. 227 to teach English efficiently or whether we recognize that it is impossible to teach English rapidly, ELD must be taken seriously by all teachers. One academic year is not enough for academic proficiency in a new language. Therefore the mainstream cannot remain an English-as-usual classroom. All teachers need to be involved in second language acquisition, content development and multicultural searches for common ground. This is the core concept of CLAD, crosscultural, language and academic development. But it takes more than a statement of standards to create CLAD schools for a diverse student body. Finally, for English proficiency to be seen as ongoing development, schools have to connect ELD to Language Arts. The strongest language arts curriculum is one based in multilingual development, recognizing that certain skills are the same in all languages (e.g., dictionary skills, narrative structure), and that others must be addressed with specific comparisons among languages (e.g., spelling, syntax). The value of language needs to pass from rhetoric to innovation in schools.

Prop. 227 has spurred both controversy, retrogression and positive change in university teacher preparation programs. In the bilingual teacher preparation program at Long Beach, which served as the source of these data, revisions to courses included several components. First, clearer ways of communicating the program's continued goal of professional biliteracy. Second, clarifying second language approaches and strategies. Third, strengthening the ELD components of bilingual teacher preparation.

Students develop a philosophy of Bilingual Education with two visions: short-range compliance with 227 and SEI; and ideal, education for societal bilingualism through dual language immersion. Students, whether pre-service or EPTs were asked to reflect and to document the questions and issues that emerged in different school settings. They also focused on cultural experiences and literature to engage students in the classroom. Teachers were also challenged to seek realia (objects and materials) they need for appropriate ELD and SDAIE. These ongoing areas need further development, but clearly, the gap is closing between bilingual and regular education. Students were continually reminded that the credential prepared them to teach bilingually, to be leaders in schools and advocates for bilingual communities. This role was welcomed, though it challenges both the student and the university program. Participants recognized that they needed to prepare themselves to lead discussions and to begin study groups in their school sites.

The analysis of data for this study is ongoing. The courses undergo periodic revisions to include pertinent documents and sources to bring children's cultural experiences into the university and school classroom. In the future, the BCLAD program will involve additional investigation of the status of SEI and more discussions on ELD and English in the academic areas. Revisions to the student teaching seminar will also have a portfolio and video sample to verify and help students reaching standards in English Language Development the creation learning materials. It is clear that the terms of bilingual teacher preparation will be negotiated and repositioned continuously in the post-227 educational era.

References

Attinasi, J. (1998). English Only for California Children and the Aftermath of Proposition 227. In: A Systems Approach to Children's Problems. Houck, J. (Ed). Education, 119:2 Winter 1998, 263-282.

Brisk, M. E. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensator? to quality schooling. NY: Erlbaum.

California Education Code (1998). Authority cited: section 33031. Reference: Sections 305,306 and 310, English for the Children http:/ /www.cde.ca.gov./prop227.html.

CERC (California Educational Research Consortium). (1997). Analysis of the English language development program in the Santa Aha school district. Riverside: Author.

Corey, S. M.. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. NY: Teachers College.

Crawford, J. (1992). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of "English-only." Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Cummins, J. (1981). "The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students." In, Leyba, C. F., Ed. Schooling and language minority children: A theoretical framework. Sacramento: California Department of Education.

Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Educational empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (2000). Beyond adversarial discourse. In, Ovando, C. & McLaren, P. The politics of multiculturalism. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Dewey, J. (1897/1952). My Pedagogic Creed. In Dewey on Education Selections. NY: Teachers College Press. 19-32

Education Code; U.S. Code, Title 20. Sectopm 1703(f); Castaneda v. Pickard (5tj Cir. 1981) 648 F.2d 989, 1009-1011; and Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education (7th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1030, 101-102.

Freire, P. (1992). Education for Critical Consciousness. NY: Continuum Publishing Co.

Gersten, R. (1985). Structured immersion for language minority students: Results of a longitudinal evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7, 187-196.

Glanz, J. (1998). Action research: An educational leader's guide to school improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.

Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G. & Wilt. D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Policy Report 2000-1. Santa Barbara: University of California Language Minority Research Institute.

Noffke, S.E. & Stevenson, R.B. (1995). Educational Action Research: Becoming Practically Critical. (Eds.) New York: Teachers College Press. Quezada, M. S., Wiley, T. & Ramirez, J. D. (2000) How the reform agenda shortchanges English learners. Educational Leadership, 57(4), 57-61.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984). Bilingualism or not. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Stevenson, R.B., Noffke, S., Flores, Ed. and Granger, S.(1995) Teaching Action Research: A Case Study. In Educational Action Research: Becoming Practically Critical. New York: Teachers College Press. 60-73.

Wiley, T. & Hartung-Cole, E. (1998). Model standards for English language development: National trends and local response. In Education: 119: 1998, 2, 205.

Dr. Olga G. Rubio and Dr. John Attinasi, Teacher Education Department, California State University, Long Beach.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Olga G. Rubio, Teaching Education Department, California State University, 1250 Bellflower Blvd, ED2-194, Long Beach, California 90840-220