Cultivando confianza: a bilingual community of practice negotiates restrictive language policies

This article was downloaded by: [67.185.52.221] On: 15 December 2014, At: 10:29 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Cultivando confianza: a bilingual community of practice negotiates restrictive language policies a

b

Sarah N. Newcomer & Kelly Puzio a

Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University Tri-Cities, Richland, WA, USA b

Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA Published online: 11 Dec 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Sarah N. Newcomer & Kelly Puzio (2014): Cultivando confianza: a bilingual community of practice negotiates restrictive language policies, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2014.983043 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.983043

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.983043

Cultivando confianza: a bilingual community of practice negotiates restrictive language policies Sarah N. Newcomera and Kelly Puziob* a Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University Tri-Cities, Richland, WA, USA; bDepartment of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

(Received 15 April 2014; accepted 27 October 2014) Drawing from an ethnographic study of how one school community negotiates Englishonly policy in Arizona, we investigated how a bilingual community of practice was established at one school. Integral to establishing this bilingual community was the mobilization of Spanish-speaking families in the school’s daily life and operation. This school–parent mutual engagement cultivated feelings of confianza, or trust, between educators and families, and ultimately facilitated the use of parent waivers to opt out of the state’s mandated English-only program. Implications include the significance of establishing bilingual communities of practice and the need to engage the entire school community, especially families, in policy negotiation. Keywords: bilingual education; communities of practice; language policy; parent engagement; language minority families

In November 2000, Arizona voters approved Proposition 203, the ‘English for the Children’ Initiative, which mandated that children learning English as second language, or English learners (ELs), be taught in English, through sheltered English immersion programs (ARS Section 15–752). Despite evidence indicating that it takes four to seven years to achieve academic proficiency in English (Cummins 2003; Collier and Thomas 1988; Thomas and Collier 1997), Proposition 203 also set a one-year exit expectation. Inconsistency in the implementation of Proposition 203 led the state legislature to pass House Bill 2064 in 2006, prescribing a specific model of Structured English Immersion, commonly referred to as a four-hour English language development (ELD) block, with specific guidelines for allocating instructional blocks of time for discrete language arts skills (i.e. 30 minutes for oral English and conversation, 60 minutes for grammar, etc.) (ARS Section 15–756). In light of this legislation, Arizona has been called, ‘“ground zero” for the most restrictive language policies in the country … having a negative social and educational impact on language minority students and educators’ (Arias and Faltis 2012, xxiii). As suggested by Arias and Faltis (2012), for the purposes of this paper, restrictive language policies are defined as language policies which lead to negative social and educational outcomes, such as the loss of home/native language ability as well as an increased disparity in academic achievement in schools where English-only policies have been put into place. As Wiley (2012) summarizes, along with mandating the ELD block, Arizona has enacted many other restrictive policies. For *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2014 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

2

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio

example, the state legislature banned ethnic studies, made English the official language, and charged students brought to the USA as children nonresident university tuition. Additionally, sanctions have been levied against businesses found employing undocumented workers, stringent requirements have been created to prove citizenship for voting, and the police have been given authority to detain those suspected of not being in the country legally. Finally, public reference to ‘illegal children’ has permeated the state’s media, with some calling for a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment (which guarantees US citizenship to all who are born or naturalized within the USA and prohibits states from creating laws which might repeal the rights and privileges of US citizens). These policies and discourses influence local schools, particularly those serving English language learning students. Prior to Proposition 203, bilingual classes existed throughout Arizona public education (Combs et al. 2005). Since the passing of this legislation, the vast majority of these programs have disappeared. While Proposition 203 mandates English-only for children under age 10, parents may sign waivers permitting children aged 10 and older to receive bilingual education, exempting their children from the four-hour ELD block. However, few parents or educators know about this option, and as a result, the vast majority of Arizona’s ELs, regardless of age, receive instruction only in English. These restrictive language policies have made it increasingly difficult to create bilingual educational communities in Arizona. By bilingual educational community, we mean formal communities that value, leverage, and support students’ home language both through the official curriculum as well as cultural practice. This case study documented one such school community, which we will refer to as Desert Breeze Elementary,1 and chronicled the way that educators, students, administrators, and family members worked together to realize this bilingual vision. Background Arizona’s waiver system It is important to discuss the policy context around Proposition 203 and bilingual education. Although legal challenges have been made to the constitutionality of Arizona’s Proposition 203 and California’s Proposition 227 (which 203 is modeled after), no challenges have (thus far) been successful. This legislation has withstood legal challenges because of the flexibility offered by the parent waivers. Proposition 203 was modeled after California’s Proposition 227, which was initiated and supported financially by a California Silicon Valley millionaire, Ron Unz. In both laws, there are three options, which allow parents to waive the mandatory English-only instruction: (1) if their child already knows English (and scores high enough on Arizona’s English Language Learner Assessment [AZELLA] exam; (2) if their child is at least 10 years of age; or (3) if their child has special needs. With the use of these waivers, a child can be placed in a class that teaches English through a bilingual approach (ARS Section 15–752). Because the language in California’s Proposition 227 is somewhat ambiguous, local school districts and principals interpreted this law in different ways, with many school districts continuing to implement some form of bilingual education. For example, the phrase children with ‘special educational needs’ allowed districts the opportunity to claim that lack of English language proficiency was a type of ‘special’ need which could be addressed through bilingual educational programs. Due to such varying interpretations, Unz and his team created a stricter policy in Arizona (Crawford 2000). Crawford (2000) argues that the inclusion of the waiver option in both propositions made it seem that parents retained some choice over their children’s education. However, under Proposition

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

3

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

203, Arizona school officials can reject waivers without explanation, diminishing parental choice and educational flexibility.

The benefits of bilingual education The benefits of using students’ home language alongside English in school are well documented (Christian 1994; Lindholm and Gavlek 1994; Lindholm-Leary 2001; MartinezRoldán and Newcomer 2011; Peregoy 1991; Puzio et al. 2013). August, Goldenberg, and Rueda (2010) compared results between English-only and bilingual programs, finding that instruction in students’ primary language or in both their home language and English leads to better outcomes in reading achievement. They also argued that bilingual education leads to other benefits, including cognitive flexibility, family cohesion, and increased self-esteem. For native English speakers, dual language programs have positive effects as well, including learning an additional language and developing an appreciation for the languages and cultures of their classmates (Genesee 1987; Harley et al. 1990). There are three main types of dual language programs: those serving native English speakers (called second or foreign language immersion programs), those that serve ELs (one-way developmental bilingual education programs), and finally those that combine both native English speakers and ELs (two-way immersion programs; Freeman 2007). In addition, these models use different time allocations of the use of Spanish and English. For example, some programs use the 90–10 model, where Spanish is used 90% of the time while English is used 10% of the time, with this division gradually evening out each year until approximately fourth grade when the time spent in each language is 50–50. Other programs start with a 50–50 approach from the beginning (Freeman 2007). What all dual language programs have in common is that they treat languages other than English as resources rather than problems (Ruiz 1984), taking an ‘additive’ rather than remedial approach to education for ELs (Lambert 1987). In dual language settings, educators may share a common discourse and vision that values and utilizes students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Freeman 1998). For example, McCarty’s (2002) critical life history of Rough Rock Demonstration School on the Navajo reservation in Arizona documented how once the community gained full control of the school, they were able to implement a dual language program that shared a common vision of school and which engaged community members in various roles, such as teaching, creating arts and crafts, and developing Navajo language and culture curriculum. Theoretically, dual language programs may boost cognitive and social growth because students’ literacies in both languages are developed and because content (e.g., reading, math, science) is more comprehensible (Krashen 1991).

Problems with English-only instruction After state-mandated English-only instruction, the empirical research has shown mixed results, no effect, or – in some cases – negative outcomes for ELs. Typically, researchers argue that the performance gap remains constant in most subject areas and grades (Uriarte et al. 2010). One study documented mixed results for student achievement (Wentworth et al. 2010), but other researchers have shown a widening of the achievement gap (Mahoney et al. 2010) and increased dropout rates for ELs (Uriarte et al. 2010). Collectively, these studies suggest that English-only legislation is not based on supporting the improved academic achievement and graduation of ELs.

4

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio

For Arizona in particular, researchers have documented that the four-hour ELD block creates a variety of negative outcomes, including social isolation for ELs, the use of learning materials that were not grade-appropriate (i.e. unchallenging and/or designed for younger students), and an overemphasis on correct language forms versus authentic language use (Lillie et al. 2010). Furthermore, Lillie et al. (2010) found that most ELs did not pass out of the ELD classes within one year, even though this is a main stipulation of the policy. In addition, Wright and Pu (2005) conducted a study examining the effect of Proposition 203 on student achievement. The researchers found a modest increase in test scores after two years of implementation, but attributed the increase to the continued use of the students’ first language for instruction, a pedagogical flexibility that no longer existed after passage of HB 2064.

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

The critical role of families When families are involved in school activities and decision-making, student participation and achievement improves (Chadwick 2004; Epstein et al. 2002; Henderson and Berla 1994; Johnson 2014). This is especially important for students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, for whom a disparity in academic achievement often exists. Delgado Gaitan (2012) suggests that when parents become more involved in schools, families amass cultural capital and can influence how schools work. She outlines several possible teacher–parent relationships, including ‘conventional’ (e.g., when parents are invited to come to school events, such as open house), ‘culturally responsive’ (when educators reach out to parents), and ‘empowering’ (when parents become agents of change). Besides the positive effects parents have on student achievement, researchers highlight the critical role that families can play in supporting linguistically and culturally relevant curriculum. In New Zealand, Berryman et al. (2010) underscored the active role that parents played in revitalizing the Maori language through movements such as Kohanga Reo, which has led to the availability of Maori-medium education. Tuafuti and McCaffrey (2008) similarly report that parent activism has led to native language instruction for the Pasifika community in mid-Auckland, New Zealand. As another example of family support, Bloch, Guzula, and Nkence (2010) discuss findings from a study conducted in South Africa, wherein a grandmother withdrew her grandson from an English-medium school because he was struggling academically, placing him in a bilingual Xhosa/English school. These family- and community-supported activities show that family and parental action can influence instructional and curricular decisions. Although much research has been conducted on dual language programs and the important role of families, no study has documented the values, beliefs, and practices of a bilingual school community in Arizona after the passage of Proposition 203. This is regrettable because the story and history of Desert Breeze are important for educators, researchers, and policy-makers to understand. In spite of highly restrictive language policies, this school has continued to offer a bilingual education program. Using ethnographic and interview data from a variety of school members, this case study documents how Desert Breeze accomplished this. Theoretical perspective This investigation views learning and identity as social phenomena that develop within a community of practice (Wenger 1998). According to Wenger (1998), a community of

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

5

practice is a collection of people who consistently engage in some common endeavor or shared interest, such as a bowling team, a book club, a church congregation, or a school. Central to a community of practice is the concept of practice. Members of a community of practice are practitioners. They ‘do’ things (e.g., writing, bowling, teaching) and what they ‘do’ is essential to their community. They share a repertoire of resources – stories, tools, words, and routines – that support, facilitate, and interpret their shared practice. This perspective situates bilingual education as a school-based practice that is shaped and influenced by a multitude of values, actors, and policies. Communities develop their practice through mutual engagement (Wenger 1998) in joint activities. In pursuing their common practice, community members discuss important goals, help each other, and share information and expertise. In doing so, they build relationships that enable them to learn from each other. From a community of practice perspective, learning is characterized by increased participation in the practices of a community, and guided by a shared sense of value and meaning. Communities of practice are opportunities for participants to learn new roles, knowledge, and skills. From this perspective, it is not simply learning that takes place within communities of practice, but it is also identity formation insofar as knowing and being are intimately connected. According to Wenger (1998), another way that people belong to a community is through alignment. Alignment is the coordination of perspective and actions. When an organization is highly aligned, practitioners have a joint enterprise (i.e., joint goals) and thus can effect change beyond their individual effort because the perspectives and actions of multiple participants are coordinated toward a common purpose. The work of alignment entails such things as creating a shared purpose or focus (e.g., pledge of allegiance), negotiating perspectives (e.g., faculty debate), and finding common rituals (e.g., retreat) and routines (e.g., holiday party, rules for a sports league) to support a shared vision. Typically, the development of alignment requires brokers (Wenger 1998), who build bridges between different perspectives, agendas, and role groups. Brokers often bring objects from another community – boundary objects – which support connections between different communities. These boundary objects can take multiple forms, including artifacts (e.g., tools, documents, models), discourses (e.g., common language to communicate and negotiate meaning), and policies (e.g., routines and procedures that coordinate activity across boundaries). In our results, we use the communities of practice theoretical framework to understand and explain how this school community navigated restrictive language policies and enacted policies and practices that valued bilingualism and bilingual education. Research context and method Desert Breeze Elementary The school under investigation, Desert Breeze Elementary, was unique because administrators and educators supported families to sign waivers, opting out of Proposition 203 and House Bill 2064. Although we could not locate any statistics, we know that very few other schools in Arizona have opted out of this legislation. These waivers allowed the school to forego the state mandated form of Structured English Immersion, the aforementioned four-hour ELD block (also known as House Bill 2064) and continue their Spanish/English dual language program. Given the extreme restrictions of these laws, along with the state’s many other ‘anti-immigrant’ policies, the ability of the Desert Breeze community to not only continue with their dual language program,2 but also with a bilingual culture and community across the school, is remarkable.

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

6

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio

Desert Breeze is a K-8 public elementary school with about 750 students, located in Phoenix, Arizona, approximately 180 miles from the USA–Mexico border. Nearly 65% of the student population is ELs, most speaking Spanish as their first language, and 90% of the students are Latino. Of this 90%, many students are from families who have emigrated from Mexico, and are from Mexico themselves, or represent the first generation born in the USA. Additionally, 87% are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. At Desert Breeze, the dual language program represents one strand of classes within the school, serving four classes or approximately 120 students in the fifth to eighth grades. (In past years, the dual language option was available in the fourth to eighth grades; current grade combinations of first/second and third/fourth preclude fourth graders from participating.) Previous to Proposition 203, the school’s dual language program had thrived across the K-8 grades, with two or three classes at each level; after the law changed, the school was forced to switch to a late entry model. Despite the restriction, an option remained allowing children aged 10 and older to be placed, through parent waiver, in an alternative language program. However, children in grades K-3 were no longer eligible for instruction in Spanish. The dual language program at Desert Breeze To support bilingual and biliterate students, Desert Breeze Elementary School instituted dual language classes in 1990. At a curricular and pedagogical level, this longstanding dual language program has since played a significant role in shaping the culture and climate of the school as well as encouraging students to appreciate and use their home language. It is important to note that the use of Spanish is not limited to the confines of the dual language classrooms but may be heard across the grades and in all areas of the school. Nearly all study participants mentioned the dual language program as a defining feature of the school. As such, while the dual language program is currently a small strand within the school, it has continued to play an important role in maintaining the school’s identity as a bilingual campus, one where Spanish has, for the past 24 years, been welcomed, valued, and used for a multitude of purposes, involving all school members in the school’s broader bilingual community of practice, not just the participants in the dual language classrooms. While Desert Breeze community members have continued to describe the school in bilingual terms, as already mentioned, a number of changes to the dual language program have been made since the passage of Proposition 203. Once this legislation was passed, the school was forced to modify the dual language program to a late entry model, in order to become eligible for the state’s second waiver option, which allowed parents to opt children ‘aged 10 or older’ out of the English-only requirement. At the time of the study, there were four bilingual education classes at the fifth to eighth grades. All K-4 classes were now taught in English, using a sheltered language approach. Initially, after the change to a late entry program, the school offered a summer Spanish ‘bridge’ program, targeting students transitioning to the dual language classes, in an attempt to help prepare them for instruction in Spanish. However, after a couple of summers, this practice was discontinued due to lack of funding. At the time of the study, approximately one-quarter of the students in the dual language program were designated as ELs. Most others had tested ‘out’ of this designation at this stage, and were considered to be fluent English proficient (FEP). In keeping with the overall demographics of the school, which consists of a 90% Latino population, nearly all students in the dual language program were Latinos. A few students were native English speakers,

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

7

for whom the dual language classes served as more of a heritage language program, and even fewer students were non-Latino students learning Spanish as a second language. For example, at the time of the study, one junior high student in the dual language program was African-American, although in years past, the number of non-Latino students learning Spanish as a second language has been higher. Students in the dual language program ranged in terms of their Spanish literacies. The program model followed was a 50–50 model in terms of Spanish and English use, which alternated by quarter. Based upon classroom observations, many junior high students demonstrated greater ability to read and write in Spanish than students in the fifth/sixth grades, which might be expected given that the junior high students had spent more time in the program. Work completed in Spanish included language arts, social studies, and math. At the junior high level, an in-depth inquiry study on child labor, in which students read, discussed, and composed power points using Spanish, was also observed. When prompted, students had a variety of comments about their language skills, with some feeling stronger in English, others feeling stronger in Spanish, while some considered themselves completely bilingual. For example, one student commented that, ‘I get it more in [Spanish]. I understand it more’ while yet another shared that, ‘I’m not really good at writing in Spanish’ (Interview, December 7, 2011). In addition, some of the parents interviewed expressed that while they felt their older children were bilingual, they worried that their youngest children, those now in the K-4 grades at Desert Breeze, were losing some of their Spanish language ability.

The Grove Community Learning Center The Grove Community Learning Center, commonly referred to as just ‘the Grove’ or ‘la Arboleda’ by Desert Breeze community members, is a community learning space begun by the former principal of Desert Breeze, Mr Watts. In addition to eligibility from 30 years of service to the district, Mr Watts retired in order to devote himself full-time to directing this nearby non-profit center. The center is located a quarter of a mile from the school on 7.5 acres of land that includes a citrus grove, stables, a chicken coop, and plenty of open space for school and community gardens. The Grove’s outdoor grounds provide opportunities to learn about gardening, animal husbandry, and health and wellness, and offers space for community conversations around a variety of pertinent issues. Many events involving Desert Breeze families take place at the Grove, including gardening projects, community celebrations, and family movie nights. As such, the Grove is a significant extension of the school and important to discuss here as one of the many structures that facilitate parent involvement.

Researcher positionalities The first author is an Anglo, bilingual educator who formerly taught at Desert Breeze, first as the family literacy instructor from 1999 to 2001, and then in the Spanish/English dual language program, from 2002 to 2008. Wolcott (2008) suggests that, ‘intimate, longterm acquaintance with a group of people ought to enrich an account, not be regarded as a threat to it’ (99). The first author used her prior experience at Desert Breeze, coupled with a critical self-awareness, to guide data collection. By critical self-awareness we mean a process of active reflection on the researcher’s role and feelings during the research. In this way, the researcher strives to remain aware of potential biases that may influence the

8

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

study. The second author is an Anglo, monolingual educator who actively supports bilingual and culturally relevant approaches to instruction. Participants Purposeful sampling is premised on the idea that a select sample can yield the most information (Merriam 2009). Administrators and teachers involved with planning and designing the school’s programs and curriculum, students enrolled in the dual language program and their families, and other stakeholders with long-term insight into the school’s history were selected. Eight focal teachers agreed to classroom observations: four dual language and four non-dual language teachers. Moreover, 56 school community members agreed to interviews: the former and current principals, four other administrative professionals, five additional teachers, 10 parents (three also teach at the school), and 37 students. The former principal, Mr Watts, after 22 years as the school principal, retired the year prior to the study, and a new principal had taken leadership of the school. Research design The study’s goal was to learn more about a bilingual community of practice. We sought to understand how one community valued, developed, and supported the practice of bilingualism. With this objective in mind, we employed a qualitative case study design. Case studies are appropriate for answering how and why questions, specifically when multiple sources of evidence will be used, multiple views of reality are likely to exist, and the boundaries between the studied phenomenon and its setting are blurred (Thomas 2011; Yin 2009). This case study’s subject is one K-8 school in Arizona, and its central objects are the bilingual values, practices, and activities throughout the school community. Our purpose was to describe this bilingual education community and to develop local theory about practices, policies, and activities that support a bilingual community of practice. Data collection Ethnographic data were collected from 17 October to 23 December 2011 and 1 March to 20 April 2012. The first author took field notes during weekly classroom observations, focusing first on the seventh/eighth multi-grade classrooms and later on the fifth/sixth multi-grade classrooms. The first author also conducted formal and informal interviews with teachers, parents and students. Modeled after McCarty, Brayboy, and Silver’s (2010) adaptation of Seidman’s (2006) three-part interview, the semi-structured protocol asked participants to share their experiences about language and learning, the school, the dual language program, and the state’s English-only policies. The data collection included 58 classroom observations, 27 interviews, 12 focus groups, and an array of student work samples. For the interviews, a three-part semi-structured protocol (Seidman 2006) was used. First, participants’ experiences were placed within context (e.g., tell me about some of your early experiences with language/learning language). Next, concrete details of participants’ experiences were gathered (e.g., tell me about being a/an (educator, student, parent/family member, or other role) at Desert Breeze). Finally, participants were asked to reflect upon the meaning of those experiences (e.g., tell me about what the ways the Desert Breeze school community approaches language and learning language mean

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

9

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

to you). See Appendix 1 for the complete protocol. In addition, the observation protocol focused on the following aspects of the classroom: physical environment, language use, lesson content, lesson delivery, student participation, and materials used. Please see Appendix 2 for the complete observation protocol. Finally, student work samples that represented the type of daily work completed were collected. Data analysis Our analysis was both deductive and inductive. Insofar as community of practice was our theoretical framework, our inquiry deductively sought to identify interactions and themes exemplifying a bilingual community of practice. At the same time, the community of practice theory is not specified enough to support a nuanced understanding of bilingualism, so our analysis also described themes and categories within the community of practice constructs. These derived themes and categories can be conceptualized as local theory about situated and school-based bilingualism. Our analytic approach (LeCompte and Goetz 1984; Strauss and Corbin 1990) followed a three-step procedure. First, each author read the transcribed data, independently drafting categories and conjectures. Second, we discussed preliminary results – further drafting the categories and themes presented here. During a series of meetings, we collapsed some initial categories, eliminated others, and negotiated our conjectures. Lastly, during our collaborative writing, we further refined these categories.

Findings Our findings revealed a variety of shared values and practices that supported a bilingual community of practice at Desert Breeze Elementary. For one, speaking Spanish and being bilingual were considered by many participants to be an important part of student, family, and school identity. Speaking Spanish and being bilingual were shared values. Next, students, families, and teachers engaged with one another in a variety of school- and community-related activities and events. Finally, the school’s principal acted as a key broker in aligning the school community through such shared values and practices. However, each of these groups contributed an important role in maintaining this alignment around the shared value and practice of bilingualism and mutual engagement. Key practices and values: speaking Spanish and being bilingual The practice of bilingualism was paramount to this community. Many participants discussed the importance of speaking Spanish and being bilingual in their home and the school. First and foremost, many participants, including teachers, students, and parents, expressed that speaking Spanish was an important part of their identity. Second, above and beyond using one language, in this case either Spanish or English, community members also valued bilingualism. Third, and quite importantly, the ability to use both Spanish and English at school was not just important to the students and parents, but an important part of the school’s identity as well. Spanish as an identity shaping tool In a variety of interviews and discussions, students, parents, and teachers expressed the importance of speaking Spanish. For many, Spanish represented a significant way to remain connected to their backgrounds. In addition, Spanish was an important tool for understanding

10

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio

the world and expressing themselves. Moreover, Spanish was a significant aspect of cultural identity, an aspect connecting children to their cultural heritage and their extended families. Students often spoke about the connection between language and identity. In response to how she would feel without the dual language program, a junior high student said, ‘I think, well, like for me, I would feel bad because I’d kind of, like, forget about my background, like, if we only talked English, English, English’ (Focus Group, March 8, 2012). Another former Desert Breeze student described Spanish as ‘another world’. The ability to speak Spanish was intimately connected to the way he thought:

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

Well, Spanish was my first language, so, that’s like … There’s more bigger words that I use to help me explain like how I’m feeling or something. And in English, well, I still feel the same way, but I think, like, in Spanish. I don’t know, but there’s the words … I don’t know how to explain it.

In addition, he explained that: But it's another world and if you talk English, that’s your world – the music, the traditions, and everything. If you talk Spanish it’s like a whole different … everything’s different. And that’s a door that Desert Breeze would open to you by having the … dual language program. (Student Focus Group, March 9, 2012)

These comments show this student’s belief that language was more than just speaking and communication; it influenced how he lived, the traditions and textual spaces that he participated in, and the way he interpreted his reality. In short, language was a sociocultural and identity-shaping tool. Parents and teachers also felt that language was tied to identity. For example, one mother stated, ‘Now she’s [her daughter] understanding the concept of why we want Spanish – because it’s part of our culture, our tradition, and you don’t want to lose that’ (Interview, April 9, 2012). In regard to why it was important to her for her daughter to learn Spanish, another mother asserted, ‘Sí, es algo muy importante para mí, mi esposo. Soy orgullosa de ser mexicana. Soy orgullosa de mi español.’ [Yes, it’s something important for my husband and I. I am proud to be Mexican. I am proud of my Spanish.] Additionally, many teachers believed that language was an important aspect of identity: ‘I believe that in terms of identity, language is key’ (Interview, March 23, 2012). Along with serving as a bridge to students’ cultures, families, and social networks, learning and using Spanish was viewed as a critical identity-forming tool. Valuing bilingualism While participants discussed Spanish in connection with culture and identity, they also mentioned other reasons why knowing Spanish and English were important. Many students spoke of a job market advantage: ‘I have better opportunities and I can communicate with more people just because of the fact that I speak both languages’ (Focus Group, March 8, 2012). One sixth grader commented, ‘I think another language is important because it’s, like, part of your culture … For instance, if you’re Mexican American, you could talk both languages, and like he said, “two is better than one”’ (Focus Group, April 13, 2011). Parents also valued their children’s ability to speak both languages. One mother explained, ‘Los dos igual. Los dos idiomas usan – no más español ni más inglés. Es igual’ [Both equally. They use both languages – not more Spanish or more English. It’s equal.] She also said, ‘Vale más una persona que hable más que un

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

11

idioma a que una que hable no más uno’ [A person who speaks more than one language is worth more than someone who speaks only one] (Interview, March 1, 2012). Another mother declared: Pues, la verdad, es bien importante para mi que mi hija, por un lado aprende inglés porque está aquí, todos sus maestros, su escuela, su carrera … También es importante el español porque no quiero que mi hija se olvide mi … que se olvide … cómo se dice … Mi … pues, sí, mi lenguaje. Quiero que también sepa mi lenguaje.

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

[Well the truth is that it is very important for me that my daughter, on the one hand learns English because she is here, all of her teachers, her school, her career … Also, it’s important that she learns Spanish because I don’t want my daughter to forget my … that she forget … My … How can I say it … Well, my language. I want her to also know my language.]

Thus, while Spanish was imperative to families, the ability to speak, read, and write, in both languages was valued over speaking just one language.

Bilingualism and community identity Despite the concessions made by the Desert Breeze community due to the change in Arizona’s law, both languages continued to be used throughout the school, for school business, communication with parents, official events, and for socializing. The use of both Spanish and English across the school’s campus, both within and outside of the Dual Language program, was an important part of this community’s identity – a point of pride for many. As one former student remarked, ‘A lot of students, even if they weren’t in the dual enrollment program, they still spoke Spanish, and we all spoke Spanish to each other, so we used it in school even if we weren’t learning in Spanish’ (Focus Group, March 9, 2012). One third grade teacher who formerly taught in the dual language program described the ongoing use of Spanish across the school: It’s a culture here. You still hear kids on the sidewalk talking Spanish. A teacher will go back and forth in Spanish; the book baskets that you see around campus have bilingual books. … I guess, I don’t know if it’s so conscious or not, but I feel like that’s just who we are and so it’s just so evident. (Interview, November 29, 2011)

This teacher’s quote suggests that using Spanish, whether for formal or informal purposes, was an ongoing important part of the school’s identity. Another mainstream teacher described her efforts to incorporate Spanish within her teaching as well as her strong relationships with her students’ Spanish speaking families, even though she did not speak Spanish. She said: I think that, it’s [communicating in Spanish] important, and I had a family whose mom doesn’t speak a whole lot of English and they took me to Mexico with them last summer for four days to Hermosillo, so, I feel like even though I joke around and I say things like I’m Mexican-Adjacent, because I feel like even though I don’t speak the language very well, but I still feel like I’ve been accepted in the community and that the parents feel like I am part of the community as well. (Interview, January 6, 2013)

This quote provides some evidence that bilingualism was the dominant value and practice in this setting. This monolingual educator expressed a shared value for the Spanish

12

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio

language; in addition, she expressed notions of inferiority for not being bilingual. At the same time, even though she was not bilingual, this community accepted her.

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

Engaging teachers, students, and families Along with valuing similar practices, members of a community of practice do things together. As community members mutually engage in various activities, community members learn from each other and acquire roles, skills, and knowledge. Insofar as identity is shaped by our beliefs and actions, these mutual activities are essential to community building and value co-construction. Desert Breeze was a place where teachers, students, and parents did things together. While many formal events brought parents and teachers together, these relationships were also built in non-traditional ways, such as through family education programs and using extensive parental support in school-based activities. At Desert Breeze, there were a variety of community events, including weekly school-wide gatherings known as ‘Monday morning ritual’, parent–teacher conferences, and student performances and showcases. Monday morning ritual was a weekly event in which the entire school body assembled in the school’s gymnasium for announcements, the pledge of allegiance, and class performances. This regular event was conducted in both English and Spanish, and what was noteworthy was that all school members, including monolingual English speakers, participated in reciting the pledge in Spanish. This was but one example of the way the practice of bilingualism was extended to all school members, whether officially in the dual language program or not. Engaging activities within school Another key opportunity for mutual engagement at Desert Breeze was extracurricular events. As part of the school’s arts program, there were regular ‘Arts Extravaganzas’. An observation of the fall band concert showed the event to be so well attended that the auditorium was filled to standing room only, as shown in this excerpt: When I arrived fifteen minutes before the concert was scheduled to start, the parking lot was already full when I walked into the cafeteria. A feeling of excitement filled the room. A slide show of the junior high students’ recent trip to Prescott for their annual Arts Quest camp was being shown on the large screen in the front. People were enjoying the pictures, laughing and commenting. There were families everywhere – not just parents, but older and younger siblings, as well as grandparents, many eagerly holding video cameras, ready to record the evening’s event. By the time the concert started, the cafeteria had become standing room only. As I looked around I noticed many students and teachers, current and former, in the audience, among them the former principal, Jim Watts. (Field Notes, November 17, 2011)

Like most school events, the language of the event included both English and Spanish. That evening, there were linguistically and culturally relevant songs, such as ‘Oye Como Va’ by Tito Puente (later made popular by the rock band Santana) and ‘Guantanamera’, which is a song of national pride from Cuba. The audience responded with enthusiasm and applause, making a memorable evening for the young musicians and their families. As evidenced by this example, mutual engagement at Desert Breeze was not only a student and teacher affair, but included a variety of participants outside the typical school community, including grandparents, younger siblings, and former students and educators.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

13

Engaging activities outside of school

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

Along with school-bound activities, there were also opportunities for mutual engagement outside the school’s physical boundaries. Many parents, students, and teachers expressed how much they valued spending time at the Grove. As previously mentioned, the Grove served as a space for school and community classes, projects, and events. When students were asked about memorable school experiences, they often mentioned visits to the Grove, as can be seen here: Author: Tell me about what you enjoy here at this school… St 1: When we got to go to the Grove last year. Author: Okay, when you went to the Grove last year. What did you like about that? St 1: It was fun. Author: What did you guys do at the Grove last year? St 1: We planted stuff and we made like a little garden and we, like, took care of it. Then we had to pick the plants – like all the fruit and all that. And then we had to dig up a big, old hole, like this [gesturing], and like, ten feet deep or something. Author: What was the hole for? St 2: Like an apple tree or something like that. Author: (turning to another student) You said the Grove was important to you – why? St 2: Because we learn how to plant plants, how to keep … St 3: How to make them grow. St 1: How to make the type of things that you plant, like organic. (Focus Group, December 5, 2011)

The conversation above reveals how these students enjoy their time at the Grove. However, students were not the only ones. One parent reported the following: Podemos tenernos comunicación. Por ejemplo, nos reunimos para ir a la Arboleda, para sembrar … Esas son experiencias bonitas para los niños, para que les enseñen y sepan lo que es bueno, la fruta orgánica, la verdura … Son oportunidades que nos ofrecen para los padres que quieren aprovecharlos … ir a la Arboleda y convivimos los padres de familia. (Interview, March 8, 2012) [We can communicate amongst ourselves. For example, we meet to go to the Grove, to plant … These are beautiful experiences for the children, so that they can teach them and so they know what’s good, the organic fruit, the vegetables … These are opportunities that they offer to parents that we want to take advantage of … going to the Grove and spending time together as parents.]

The Grove was valued because it provided a creative and intergenerational space for extended community members to spend time with younger generations. In this bilingual space, most parents and family members spoke only Spanish while most students spoke in English and Spanish. This provided some students (especially those with weaker Spanish skills) with another opportunity to improve their Spanish speaking skills. These bilingual opportunities were another way that a sense of family, interconnectedness, and support were nurtured. Cultivating mutual trust or confianza At Desert Breeze, an important consequence of regular, mutual engagement was open communication and trust. Many parents mentioned the comfort they felt discussing their concerns with teachers and administrators. For example, one parent said:

14

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio Pues, sí ha sido bien, siendo una madre de niños en esta escuela … he convivido con varias personas … He hecho amistades nuevas y me siento bien porque … es una escuela abierta para todos y nos da la oportunidad de expresar lo que queremos y sentimos. Me gusta la escuela porque nos da la confianza. (Interview, February 8, 2013) [It’s been good, being a mother in this school … I have spent time with various people … I’ve made new friendships and I feel good because … this is a school that’s open to everyone and this gives us the opportunity to express what we want and what we feel. I like this school because this gives us a sense of trust.]

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

This quote demonstrates this mother’s feelings of confianza. Previously examined in connection to Mexican-American families living within the USA (Vélez-Ibáñez 1983; González, Moll, and Amanti 2005), confianza indicates a relationship of mutual trust. Traditionally applied to interfamily relationships, confianza is expanded here to teachers, suggesting a feeling of intimacy and connection. Similarly, one teacher remarked: Like I told you earlier, I’ve been given great support here, but not just from the administration – I mean, from the teachers, from the community – Oh my gosh! Anytime that I do anything I have so many parents involved. They want to help. They see what we do. (Interview, November 10, 2011)

This quote echoes the earlier examples of partnership and trust. In a space of mutual respect and support, some teachers and staff at Desert Breeze reported strategically partnering with parents to accomplish school-based goals. When schools network with families, the possibilities of enacting culturally responsive instruction seem more likely. One way in which these teacher–parent partnerships were built was through the school’s parent center. A full-time parent coordinator, Mrs Ortega, ran the parent center. Her responsibilities included welcoming new parents, acting as a liaison between parents and teachers, and providing access to community resources for families. Parents could be seen daily at the parent center – learning English using the school’s computer programs, helping Mrs Ortega with a variety of school projects, or just socializing. Alignment around bilingualism When an organization is highly aligned, practitioners can effect change beyond their individual efforts because the perspectives and actions of multiple participants are coordinated toward a common purpose. The work of alignment entails creating a shared purpose and establishing common rituals and routines that support the shared vision. In developing alignment, brokers are key actors who strategically develop a joint purpose, negotiate perspectives, and enact policies that support community values. At Desert Breeze, the former principal strategically developed and supported a shared vision of a bilingual community with families, school staff, and students. He did this by strategically recruiting a bilingual faculty, adopting a bilingual communication policy, and supporting the dual language program. The principal as bilingual broker Although there was a clear value for bilingualism at Desert Breeze, this had not always been the case. As Principal Watts explained, initially, the Spanish speakers were ‘not welcome on campus and they were not there’ (Interview, January 6, 2013). Spanishspeaking parents ‘were not found on campus and were not seen as an integral part of the

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

15

school community’. In fact, back in 1990, Spanish speakers had little voice at school. Some teachers who spoke Spanish ‘were ostracized’ if they spoke Spanish on the sidewalk. With a firm belief in bilingual education, the principal gradually and strategically co-constructed alignment around the community value of bilingualism by enacting a variety of changes, policies, and practices. Principal Watts’ journey into understanding his students and the community began with home visits. He described how, during his first year of teaching, he befriended one student’s family:

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

I went and knocked on the door of a kindergartner that first year … a family from Nayarit [Mexico], with seven kids, and one of them was in my class, and I just kind of said, ‘Could we be friends?’ So I spent evenings, weekends … a lot of time with them through their family activities and holiday events and work and chores, and sat on the couch and listened. (Interview, January 6, 2013)

Along with valuing and respecting his students, this quote demonstrates that Mr Watts saw the families as a critical source of community knowledge and power. Although he was already interested in bilingual education, the impetus to create a dual language program came from a parental suggestion. Mr Watts explained: ‘[The mother] said, “Why don’t we do dual language or two-way immersion?” … I was thinking, well I get that, and she said, “Let’s just do it!” … So we started with a K/1 that first year…’ (Interview, January 6, 2013). The fact that the seeds for enacting a bilingual education program came from home visits and parental input is testimony to the practice of partnering with parents at Desert Breeze, one which began with the former principal. At Desert Breeze, more than half of the administrative, teaching, and support staff were bilingual, but this linguistic diversity was not always the case. Because of the value for bilingualism, Mr Watts strategically recruited bilingual faculty and staff. Many participants spoke of this vision, as this teacher’s words suggest, ‘I think at the beginning Mr Watts had a very strong role in the Desert Breeze community and what our goals were … his vision is still very strong and alive here…’ (Interview, November 29, 2011). Many teachers said that they wanted to work at a school where their values and language would be supported. For example, Mr Garcia, the band teacher commented, ‘I wanted to make a change to a school where I thought I would get really, really good support’ (Interview, November 10, 2011). Mrs Summers, the primary grades Resource teacher, remarked, ‘I called Jim and so that’s how I ended up here. I came back here because of him and the stuff going on here’ (Interview, November 17, 2011). As Mr Serrano, the school’s instructional programs leader pointed out, ‘Jim was here for 22 years. The last 3 years, every single teacher that was here, was here for Jim Watts. No other school could say that … Jim was our leader and we all believed in him’ (Interview, March 23, 2012). By envisioning a bilingual school, which supported families who were immigrant, Latino, and Spanish-speaking, and establishing a process wherein, ‘people started gravitating here that [had] similar beliefs as described by one of the third/fourth grade teachers (Interview, November 8, 2011)’ Principal Watts, acted as a key broker, playing a significant role in creating the bilingual community of practice at Desert Breeze. The use of waivers: principal and families Along with his role in helping to create and broker a bilingual community of practice, Principal Watts researched state waiver policies, discovering the ‘type two’ waiver that

16

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio

allowed for children aged 10 and older to be opted out of the state’s English-only classrooms. He informed the community about different choices, and advocated for families to sign the waivers, allowing the school community to continue the dual language program. While some might interpret this as an act of defiance against the state’s restrictive language policies, it was a value-centered decision for Principal Watts. In regard to how the use of waivers has been successful on a school-wide basis, one of the school’s ELL coordinators commented:

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

The community’s really close-knitted, so parents talk to each other, and so that’s how the word spread, and so a lot of parents encouraged, you know, ‘I wouldn’t do that if I were you’ and so that’s how they, how we, got a lot of parent withdrawals. (Interview, April 9, 2012)

The ELL coordinator’s comment describes how the decision to use waivers (she uses the word ‘withdrawals’) was a shared decision between the school and the families. While the principal advocated for different policies, the decision ultimately rested with the families. As the discussion above highlights, Mr Watts played a key role in helping to establish the bilingual community of practice at Desert Breeze. However, as the above discussion also suggests, his style of leadership invited many others to participate in that direction. One teacher noted: I think at the beginning, Mr. Watts had a very strong role in the Desert Breeze community and what our goals were … and I think that now the teachers have kind of taken that role, so, even though he’s not really here on campus, his vision is still very strong and alive here, through the teachers, and I think in a way it wouldn’t matter who was principal, I think we could maintain that if we didn’t have a lot of turnover or anything. I think we could just maintain that because of who we are now, and that’s what Desert Breeze is. (Interview, November 29, 2011)

Her comment supports the idea that while Mr Watts played a key role, the efforts of the entire school community in maintaining the school’s bilingual practices have also been important.

Discussion This study has documented the ways in which a bilingual community of practice persevered within a political climate that discouraged the development of both bilingualism and family agency. Using the community of practice theoretical perspective, we have shown how the values, practices, and opportunities for mutual engagement – both in and out of official school settings – developed and supported this bilingual community. Along with the principal’s critical role, parents and extended families worked alongside students and educators to actualize this bilingual space for learning and development. Implications This study has important implications for educational policy. First and foremost, this study highlights the irony of Proposition 203 and its complicated waiver system. Without evidence of effectiveness, legislators should not dictate the language of instruction. Likewise, complicated waivers have been put in place to create an illusion of parental choice, when in reality, few parents even know about this option since these waivers were

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

17

not public knowledge. Instead of constructing pedagogies based on sound evidence, these complex and restrictive policies situate ideology above learning. This study also has important implications for practice. Along with a wide variety of research, this study demonstrates the critical role of school leadership. Working with families and in communities, one principal helped co-construct and enact a bilingual educational community despite backward educational policies. In addition, this study demonstrates that families are a critical component of thoughtful and responsive policy development. Parents at Desert Breeze acted with courage to be activists on behalf of the school wide vision of sharing a bilingual community.

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

Cultivating confianza: building school communities of practice As demonstrated by our findings, if educators and families want to build bilingual communities of practice within their schools, one possible model is to cultivate confianza, relationships of mutual trust and engagement, between teachers, students, and families. Educators can begin to create such communities by understanding their community’s beliefs, values, and practices. At Desert Breeze, this understanding of the community began to develop when a young teacher (who later became the principal) spent time with an immigrant family. During these interactions, he learned a great deal – the Spanish language (which he also formalized through additional classes), the family’s cultural practices and traditions, and the family’s values and concerns. Later, he was compelled to help coconstruct a school that respected the culture, language, and heritage of the majority of families living in the community, whose linguistic and cultural resources had previously been omitted and, at times, suppressed. The principal played a critical role in establishing the dual language program and catalyzing a number of key practices, which nurtured and supported the use of Spanish along with other culturally relevant practices, such as the Latin Jazz band, across the campus. This key role begs the question of what might happen to the school’s bilingual community of practice without such a strong and committed leader. The fact that the former principal retired the year before the study provides the opportunity to consider this question. Despite the change in leadership, as demonstrated in this paper, the bilingual community of practice at Desert Breeze has continued to thrive. This is most likely due to the fact that using Spanish and supporting bilingualism at Desert Breeze had become an established part of the school’s identity. Furthermore, while the principal initiated many of the practices, which supported this process, such as fostering mutual engagement and facilitating the co-construction of shared values, the teachers and families at Desert Breeze became integral participants within this community of practice as well. Dedicated and likeminded teachers and families also helped to create this bilingual community. Teachers engaged in bilingual school events, even when they were not proficient Spanish speakers, such as reciting the pledge of allegiance in both languages and welcoming the use of Spanish in their classrooms, including in mainstream English classrooms. Dual language teachers also engaged in these school events and supported the program by creating a curriculum that utilized both languages. Families who came to feel welcomed and valued at the school, also shared in this vision of a bilingual community of practice, eventually playing an integral role in the life of the school vis-à-vis such activities as: volunteering and becoming employed in a variety of roles at the school, participating in school events, and engaging with teachers, their children, and one another through such structures as the parent center and the Grove.

18

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio As shared earlier, one teacher commented:

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

Even though he’s [Mr. Watts] not really here on campus, his vision is still very strong and alive here … In a way it wouldn’t matter who was principal … We could just maintain that because of who we are now, and that's what Desert Breeze is. (Interview, November 29, 2011)

Her quote suggests that, while Principal Watts’ strong leadership played a central role in building the school’s bilingual community of practice, the active participation of many other school community members, in continuing to engage in that bilingual community, continues to play a key role. This indicates that such a community of practice can exist after the community’s original leader is gone. Furthermore, while Mr Watts is a unique individual, his leadership in organizing a community of practitioners, is not necessarily limited to the context of Desert Breeze. Other educators who may wish to cultivate similar communities of practice at their own schools may adopt Desert Breeze’s example of such shared leadership and mutual engagement amongst teachers and families. Because of the presence of a bilingual community of practice, and the confianza, or mutual trust, established between educators and families, a portion of the school’s parents ultimately played a key role in maintaining the school’s dual language program. While parents could not opt out of the whole policy, they could exercise their waiver right for children aged 10 and older. Delgado Gaitan (2012) notes that, ‘Language and culture are central to changing power relations between families and schools’ (307). As this case study establishes, fostering a bilingual community of practice and fostering relationships of confianza transformed the power relations between educators and families at the school, going from an environment where Spanish-speaking parents were missing from the campus and the school’s functioning, to one where they became a vital part of the daily life and operation of the school.

Notes 1. 2.

The name of Desert Breeze Elementary, like all other names of participants and places within the study, is a pseudonym. As mentioned above, there are three types of dual language programs. The program at Desert Breeze is most accurately described as a one-way developmental bilingual program, serving mainly native Spanish speakers.

References Arias, M. Beatriz, and Christian Faltis, eds. 2012. Implementing Educational Language Policy in Arizona: Legal, Historical and Current Practices in SEI. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ARS (Arizona Revised Statutes), Title 15 (Education), §3.1 (English Language Education For Children in Public Schools), 751–756.01. August, Diane, Claude Goldenberg, and Robert Rueda. 2010. “Restrictive State Language Policies: Are They Scientifically Based?” In Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies, edited by Patricia Gándara and Megan Hopkins, 139–158. New York: Teachers College Press. Berryman, Mere, Ted Glynn, Paul Woller, and Mate Reweti. 2010. “Maori Language Policy and Practice in New Zealand Schools: Community Challenges and Community Solutions.” In Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers, edited by Kate Menken and Ofelia Garcia, 145–161. New York: Routledge. Bloch, Carole, Xolisa Guzula, and Ntombizanele Nkence. 2010. “Towards Normalizing South African Classroom Life: The Ongoing Struggle to Implement Mother-tongue Based Bilingual Education.” In Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers, edited by Kate Menken and Ofelia Garcia, 88–106. New York: Routledge.

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

19

Chadwick, Kathy G. 2004. Improving Schools through Community Engagement: A Practical Guide for Educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Christian, Donna. 1994. “Two-way immersion Education: Students Learning Through Two Languages.” The Modern Language Journal 80 (1): 66–76. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01139.x. Collier, Virginia P., and Wayne P. Thomas. 1988. “Acquisition of Cognitive-academic Second Language Proficiency: A Six-year Study.” Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Combs, Mary Carol, Carol Evans, Todd Fletcher, Elena Parra, and Alicia Jiménez. 2005. “Bilingualism for the Children: Implementing a Dual-Language Program in an English-only State.” Educational Policy 19 (5): 701–728. doi:10.1177/0895904805278063. Crawford, James. 2000. English-only vs. English-only A Tale of Two Initiatives: California and Arizona. http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/203-227.htm. Cummins, Jim. 2003. “BICS and CALP: Origin and Rationale for the Distinction.” In Sociolinguistics: Essential Readings, edited by Christine Bratt Paulston and G. Richard Tucker, 322– 328. Oxford: Blackwell. Delgado Gaitan, Concha. 2012. “Culture, Literacy, and Power in Family–community–school– relationships.” Theory into Practice 51 (4): 305–311. Epstein, Joyce L., Mavis G. Sanders, Steven Sheldon, Beth S. Simon, Karen Clark Salinas, Natalie R. Jansorn, Frances L. Van Voorhis. 2002. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Freeman, Rebecca. 1998. Bilingual Education and Social Change. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Freeman, Rebecca. 2007. “Reviewing the Research on Language Education Programs.” In Bilingual Education: An Introductory Reader, edited by Ofelia Garcia and Colin Baker, 3–18. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Genesee, Fred. 1987. Learning through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge: Newbury House. González, Norma, Luis C. Moll, and Cathy Amanti. 2005. Funds of Knowledge. New York: Routledge. Harley, Birgit, Jim Cummins, Merrill Swain, and Patrick Allen. 1990. “The Nature of Language Proficiency.” In The Development of Second Language Proficiency, edited by Birgit Harley, Patrick Allen, Jim Cummins, and Merrill Swain, 7–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henderson, Ann T., and Nancy Berla. 1994. A New Generation of Evidence: The Family Is Critical to Student Achievement. Washington, DC: Center of Law and Education. Johnson, Eric J. 2014. “From the Classroom to the Living Room: Eroding Academic Inequities through Home Visits.” Journal of School Leadership 24 (2): 357–385. Krashen, Stephen. 1991. “The Input Hypothesis: An Update.” In Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The State of the Art, edited by James E. Alatis, 409–431. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lambert, Wallace E. 1987. “The Effects of Bilingual and Bicultural Experiences on Children’s Attitudes and Social Perspectives.” In Childhood Bilingualism: Aspects of Linguistic, Cognitive, and Social Development, edited by Peter Homel, Michael Palij, and Doris Aaronson, 197–222. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. LeCompte, Margaret D., and Judith P. Goetz. 1984. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Waltham, MA: Academic Press. Lillie, Karen E., Amy Markos, Alexandria Estrella, Tracy Nguyen, Anthony Trifiro, M. Beatriz Arias, Terrence G. Wiley, Karisa Peer, and Karla Perez. 2010. “Policy in Practice: The Implementation of Structured English Immersion in Arizona.” Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/language-minority-students/policy-inpractice-the-implementation-of-structured-english-immersion-in-arizona/lillie-policy-practice-sei2010.pdf Lindholm, Kathryn J., and Kathryn Gavlek. 1994. California DBE Projects: Project-wide Evaluation Report, 1992–1993. San Jose, CA: Lindholm and Gavlek. Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn J. 2001. Dual Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mahoney, Kate, Jeff McSwan, Tom Haladyna, and David Garcia, 2010. “Castañeda’s Third Prong: Evaluating the Achievement of Arizona’s English Learners under Restrictive Language Policy.” In Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies, edited by Patricia Gándara and Megan Hopkins, 50–64. New York: Teachers College Press.

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

20

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio

Martinez-Roldán, Carmen, and Sarah Newcomer. 2011. “‘Reading between the Pictures’: Immigrant Students’ Interpretations of the Arrival.” Language Arts 88 (3): 188–197. McCarty, Teresa L. 2002. A Place to Be Navajo. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. McCarty, Teresa L., Brian M. B. Brayboy, and Kristen M. Silver. 2010. Promising Practices and Partnerships in Indian Education: The Puente de Hózhó Case Study. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Merriam, Sharan B. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Peregoy, Susan F. 1991. “Environmental Scaffolds and Learner Responses in a Two-Way Spanish Immersion Kindergarten.” Canadian Modern Language Review 47 (3): 463–476. Puzio, Kelly, Christoper S. Keyes, Mikel W. Cole, and Robert Jiménez, 2013. “Language Differentiation: Collaborative Translation to Support Bilingual Reading.” Bilingual Research Journal 36 (3): 329–349. doi:10.1080/15235882.2013.845118. Ruiz, Richard. 1984. “Orientations in Language Planning.” NABE: The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education 8 (2): 15–34. Seidman, Irving. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College Press. Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. “Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria.” Qualitative Sociology 13 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1007/BF00988593. Thomas, Gary. 2011. “A Typology for the Case Study in Social Science Following a Review of Definition, Discourse, and Structure.” Qualitative Inquiry 17 (6): 511–521. doi:10.1177/1077800 411409884. Thomas, Wayne, and Virginia P. Collier. 1997. School Effectiveness for Minority Language Students. NCBE Resource Collection Series 9. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Tuafuti, Patisepa, and John McCaffery. 2008. “Family and Community Empowerment through Bilingual Education.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8 (5): 480–503. doi:10.1080/13670050508668625. Uriarte, Miren, Rosann Tung, Nicole Lavan, and Virginia Diez. 2010. “Impact of Restrictive Language Policies on Engagement and Academic Achievement of English Learners in Boston Public Schools.” In Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies, edited by Patricia Gándara and Megan Hopkins, 65–85. New York: Teachers College Press. Vélez-Ibáñez, Carlos G. 1983. Bonds of Mutual Trust: The Cultural Systems of Rotating Credit Associations among Urban Mexicans and Chicanos. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wentworth, Laura, Nathan Pellegrin, Karen Thompson, and Kenji Hakuta. 2010. “Proposition 227 in California: A Long-term Appraisal of Its Impact on English Learner Student Achievement.” In Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies, edited by Patricia Gándara and Megan Hopkins, 37–49. New York: Teachers College Press. Wiley, Terrence. 2012. “Foreward.” In Implementing Educational Language Policy in Arizona: Legal, Historical and Current Practices in SEI, edited by M. Beatriz Arias and Christian Faltis, xiii–xxiii. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wiley, Terrence, and Aya Matuda. 2009. “Introductions and Course Overview.” Seminar in Heritage – Community Languages. Arizona State University, Tempe, Lecture, August 27. Wolcott, Harry F. 2008. Ethnography: A Way of Seeing. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Wright, Wayne E., and Chang Pu. 2005. “Academic Achievement of English Language Learners in Post Proposition 203 Arizona.” Tempe, Language Policy Research Unity, Educational Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University. Accessed April 13, 2014. http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED508517.pdf. Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

21

Appendix 1 Adult/student interview protocola Part I: Focused life history – placing participants’ experience in context:

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

Let’s talk about you, your background, and your experiences with language and language learning leading up to now, and how you came to be a part of the Desert Breeze (DB) school community… ✓ How do you describe your linguistic, cultural, and ethnic background? ✓ Tell me about some of your early experiences with language/learning language… ◦ With your family? ◦ At school? ◦ With friends? ◦ In your neighbourhood? ◦ At work? ✓ How did you come to be a part of DB School? ✓ How did you think about language and learning language prior to your time at DB? ✓ Is there something else you would like to say in regard to this? Part II: Details of experience – concrete details of participant’s experience: Let’s talk about your experience at DB… ✓ Tell me about being a/an ____________ (educator, student, parent/family member, or other role) at DB… ◦ What are some words you would you to describe your experience here? That do not describe your experience here? ◦ What aspects of being a part of DB are important to you? Not important? Would you like to keep/change? ◦ Do you have a choice about being here? Why or why not? ▪ If so, what elements/reasons have influenced your choice to be at DB? ▪ If given a choice, what elements/reasons would influence your decision to stay or leave? ✓ Tell me about the experiences of __________ here at DB… ◦ The educators ◦ The students ◦ The parents and families ◦ Examples of either positive and/or negative ◦ Experiences that stand out in your mind ✓ What characterizes the following… ◦ The curriculum for ELs and bilingual students? ◦ The DL program offered at this school? ◦ The teaching practices that support EL and bilingual students outside the DL program at this school? ✓ What are your thoughts and/or feelings regarding any or all of these curricula and teaching practices? ✓ Tell me about the state’s policies regarding language education in school… ◦ What are they? ◦ What are your thoughts/feelings/experiences with them? ✓ How does DB interpret and implement these policies? ✓ Tell me about the school’s policies regarding language education here at DB… ◦ What are they? ◦ What are your thoughts/feelings/experiences with them? ✓ Is there something else you would like to say in regard to this?

22

S.N. Newcomer and K. Puzio

Part III: Reflections on meaning – intellectual and emotional connections:

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

Let’s talk about how you understand your experiences with language and learning language, being a member of the DB community, and the programs/curriculum that support bilingualism… Tell me about what your experiences with language and learning language mean to you… Tell me about what your experiences with being a member of DB school community mean to you… Tell me about what the ways the DB school community approaches language and learning language mean to you… Tell me about what the ways in which the DB school community interprets and implements the state’s/school’s language education policies mean to you… ✓ Where do you see yourself going in the future? ✓ Is there something else you would like to say in regard to this? a This interview/focus group format is based upon McCarty et al (2010) and Seidman (2006).

Appendix 2 Classroom observation protocol Information to be collected: The categories below serve as a sample of the specific kinds of information to be collected throughout the observation. Date: Time of day: Teacher name: (Use pseudonym) . Linguistic and ethnic background

Grade level: Student info: . . . .

No. of students Linguistic and ethnic backgrounds No. of EL and non-EL students Possible SPED students

Other information: . Dual language or non-dual language . Content area

Physical setting . . . .

How desks are arranged What you see on the wall Languages visible Possible Spanish/bilingual materials

. . . .

Which languages Used by whom For what purposes How established

. . . . .

Objectives Content Activities Wrap-up Other

Language use:

Lesson content:

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

23

Appendix 2 (Continued) Information to be collected: The categories below serve as a sample of the specific kinds of information to be collected throughout the observation. Lesson delivery: . . . . . .

Lecture Visual aids Opportunity for student interaction Use of manipulatives Combination Other

. . . . . .

What is said Language(s) Tone (volume, emotion, etc.) Gestures Movement Other

. . . . . .

What is said Language(s) Tone (volume, emotion, etc.) Gestures Movement Other

. . . . . .

Raise hand Open conversation Individual work Pair work Group work Other

Downloaded by [67.185.52.221] at 10:29 15 December 2014

Lesson delivery – teacher:

Lesson delivery – students:

Student participation structures:

Materials/resources used: Any other possible information: Ongoing observations: This serves as a format to use to record everything that is happening during the observation. Time

Ongoing observations

Researcher reactions/questions

Source: Adapted from Terrence Wiley and Aya Matsuda (2009) as used in their heritage languages class, Fall.