Educational policy analysis archives

Educational policy analysis archives

Material Information

Educational policy analysis archives
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
serial ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
E11-00324 ( USFLDC DOI )
e11.324 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20039999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00324
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 11, no. 26 (August 06, 2003).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c August 06, 2003
Role of theory and policy in the educational treatment of language minority students : competitive structures in California / Tom T. Stritikus [and] Eugene Garcia.
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 11issue 26series Year mods:caption 20032003Month August8Day 66mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2003-08-06


1 of 30 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education Volume 11 Number 26August 6, 2003ISSN 1068-2341The Role of Theory and Policy in the Educational Tr eatment of Language Minority Students: Competitive Structures in California Tom T. Stritikus University of Washington Eugene Garcia Arizona State UniversityCitation: Stritikus, T. T. & Garcia, E. (2003, Augu st 6). The role of theory and policy in the educati onal treatment of language minority students: Competitiv e structures in California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (26). Retrieved [Date] from a/v11n26/.AbstractFor teachers, theories play a central role in guidi ng the intellectual work that they have chosen to perform. Teachers ar e guided by both theories which they use to interpret, analyze and t ake action in their professional worlds. At any given time, teachers ma y be faced with multiple and competing theoretical perspectives whi ch attempt to influence their classroom practice. In this article we examine the theoretical and policy-based positions currently co mpeting to shape the nature of educational practice for language min ority students. We highlight the salient theoretical differences betwe en additive and subtractive conceptions for the education of language minority students and their policyand practice-based impli cations. Then, we examine select findings from one districtÂ’s impleme ntation of


2 of 30 Proposition 227, and consider how teachers react wh en competing theories attempt to shape their classroom practice. Specifically, we consider: How might teachers’ theories be complemen ted or contrasted by the underlying theoretical position o f Proposition 227? How do teachers’ theories about their students medi ate the manner in which they react and respond to the policy shift away from native language instruction? We conclude by considering wh at implications additive and subtractive competitive structures have for the future of policy and practice for language minority students in the United States. In their practice, teachers are like other learners in the sense that they interpret new ideas and attempts to change their practice based o n their existing understandings. The manner in which teachers modify new ideas is ba sed upon their guiding extant theories about their profession and their students (Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Kennedy, 1991; Woods, 1994).The importance of teachers’ theories and world view s has been highlighted by empirical research. In a recent study of effective teachers for language minority students, teachers reported that they have very wel l articulated theories of how children develop and learn and the role education p lays in such processes (Garcia, 1999). In short, whether we articulate them or not, we all have theories that guide us in making meaning of the world we live in. Consequently, it is important to look more explicit ly at conceptual frameworks—theories—which might help us understand the educational circumstances of language minority students and the ir teachers. This is particularly the case when a host of competing theories attempt to drive policy and practice for language minority students. Such is the case with C alifornia’s Proposition 227 and its attempt to end bilingual education in that stat e. Specifically, we consider the following two questions: First, how might teachers’ theories be complemented or contrasted by the underlying theoretical position o f Proposition 227? Second, how do teachers’ theories about their students mediate the manner in which they react and respond to policy shift away from native langua ge instruction? To consider these questions, we examine the theoretical and pol icy-based positions currently competing to shape the nature of educational practi ce for language minority students. Then, to consider the empirical implicati ons of these questions, we examine select findings from Walton Unified School District’s implementation of Proposition 227. We use the experiences of the thre e teachers’ from the small rural district to illustrate how teachers’ theories regar ding the needs of their students, bilingual education, and language maintenance influ enced their reaction to Proposition 227. (For a full discussion of Proposit ion 227 implementation in Walton Unified see Stritikus (2002).) We conclude by consi dering what implications competitive structures have for the future of polic y and practice for language minority students in the United States.Competing Theories for the Education Language Minor ity StudentsProposition 227, known by its proponents as the “En glish for the Children Initiative,” passed with a 61% majority of California voters on June 2, 1998. The initiative was


3 of 30 an example of “people making law,” written in respo nse to apparent widespread discontent with the state’s theories/policies regar ding the education of non-English speaking children in public schools. Its intent was to inject more English instruction for these students in California’s public schools. Some 25% of California’s students currently fall into this student category and are r eferred to as Limited English Proficient (LEP), English Language Learners (ELL), and/or as language minority students. The assumption which lay under the initia tive was that teaching children in their native language served only to hold them back in their acquisition of English and therefore in their future educational success.Immediately upon its passage, Proposition 227 becam e a part of the California Education Code (#300-340). As it required within it s text, districts throughout the state were given only 60 days to implement it. Unde r this new education code, children entering California Public Schools with ve ry little English must be “observed” for a period of 30 calendar days. After 30 days, school personnel must decide if children have enough fluency in English t o manage in a mainstream English classroom. If not, they are eligible to rec eive one year of “Sheltered English Immersion,” also referred to as “Structured English Immersion,” a program of English language instruction not described in detai l in the law except to require that instruction be “nearly all” in English (with a defi nition for the term “nearly all” left up to the district’s discretion). After one year, chi ldren are normally expected to integrate into mainstream English classrooms, where instruction is required to be “overwhelmingly” in English (again, with a definiti on for the term “overwhelmingly” left up to the district’s discretion). If parents o r legal guardians find that district or school personnel, including classroom teachers, “wi llfully and repeatedly refuse” to provide the English instruction as required, they h ave the right to sue for damages. This aspect of the law has not yet been fully teste d in the courts. The only legal alternative to placing an ELL studen t in a Sheltered English Immersion and/or mainstream English classrooms is t he utilization of the parental waiver process. According to the new law, children who have special language needs, or whose parents specifically request it, ca n be placed in “Alternative Programs,” most likely some form of bilingual progr am which includes instruction in the child’s primary language. In order for a child to be enrolled in such a program, the parent or guardian must visit the school annual ly and sign a waiver requesting the placement. However, the first year a child ent ers California schools s/he must go through 30 days of “observation,” generally cond ucted in English language classrooms, even if s/he has a signed waiver. Once the 30 days is completed, the child can enroll in an alternative program.Along with the changes outlined above, the law allo cates $50,000,000 per year to train adult English learners, parents or members of the community, to serve as tutors for children learning English. Finally, the new law is careful to state that if any conflicts are uncovered between its requirements an d federal, state or constitutional law, those conflicts are resolved by following the “higher authority” of that previous law. There are some areas of the California State Board of Education’s policy regarding the instruction of Language Minority children that were not at all affected by the passage of Proposition 227. Teacher credentialing h as remained the same, as have the requirements regarding the assessment of LEP ch ildren in English and in their


4 of 30 native language. It is still required by law that s chools and districts communicate with language minority families in their primary la nguage whenever necessary. Children who are identified as in need of Special E ducation and operate under an Individual Education Plan are not touched by the ch anges.Proposition 227 and the Move to Toward Subtractive SchoolingProposition 227 certainly altered basic elements of policy toward language minority children in CaliforniaÂ’s public schools. There had been a twenty-year tradition, thorough legislative and executive actions, encoura ging, even mandating bilingual education programs in California. In 1987, these la ws officially sunset, leaving districts less clear on the mandate from the state. Nonetheless, even since 1987, there had been a climate of increasing openness tow ard bilingual programs and other special services for language minority studen ts among California school districts. Although state level support of bilingua l education existed, multiple districts and schools across the state had taken steps to lim it or weaken bilingual education programs (Wong Fillmore, 1992).Bilingual education is not, and never has been, a n eutral process. The education of linguistically diverse students is situated in larg er issues about immigration, distribution of wealth and power, and the empowerme nt of students (Cummins, 2000; Heller, 1994). Policy and practice questions are situated in debates surrounding the legitimacy of the language and cult ure of diverse groups (Olsen, 1997). The subtractive and additive frameworks adva nced in this literature review offer a way to situate the nature of teacher theori es, educational practice, and educational policy in these broader debates surroun ding the place of culturally and linguistically diverse students in the United State s. A debate intensified by the changes in the California Education Code brought ab out by the voter initiative Proposition 227 and its reversal of the stateÂ’s off icial support of primary language instruction.Garcia (1995) and Garcia and Gonzalez (1995) serve as exemplars of the theoretical/policy/practice position that was overt urned by Proposition 227. Imbedded in this additive perspective for language minority students is the understanding that language, culture, and their acc ompanying values, are constructed in the home and community environments, that children come to school with some constructed knowledge about many things, and that children's development and learning is best understood as the interaction of previous and present linguistic, socio-cultural, and cognitive c onstructions. An appropriate perspective of teaching language minority students is one that recognizes that learning becomes enhanced when it occurs in context s that are socio-culturally, linguistically and cognitively meaningful for the l earner (Garcia, 1995; Moll, 1994). Moreover, policies should reflect these conceptual underpinnings. It was the case that re-authorization of federal policy did exactly that, recognizing the importance of native language instruction and supporting those pr ograms that were additive in nature (Garcia and Gonzalez, 1995; Wiese and Garcia 1998). Table 1 exemplifies the attributes of school-wide and teacher practices associated with this conceptual framework. This is clearly contrasted with the conc eptual framework that is at the foundation of Proposition 227: a disregard for nonEnglish skills and circumstances outside of school and a focus on the instruction of English in English. Table 2 articulates the school-wide practices and teacher p ractices following from this


5 of 30 conceptual framework. The distinction between addit ive and subtractive conceptions of cultural and linguistic diversity is not meant t o be a strict dichotomy of policies and practices, but rather a framework for understanding the range of possible educational alternatives which exist for cultural a nd linguistically diverse students. Table 1. Additive Conceptual Dimensions of Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Diversity School-wide Practices A vision defined by the acceptance and valuing of diversity--Americanization is NOT the goal Professional development characterized by collaboration, flexibility and continuity with a fo cus on teaching, learning and student achievement Elimination (gradual or immediate) of policies that seek to categorize diverse students thereby rendering their educational experiences as inferior or limiting for further academic learning Reflection of and connection to surrounding community--particularly with the families of the students attending the school Teacher Practices Bilingual/bicultural skills and awareness High expectations of diverse students Treatment of diversity as an asset to the classroom Ongoing professional development on issues of cultural and linguistic diversity and practices tha t are most effective Basis of curriculum development to address cultural and linguistic diversity Attention to and integration of home culture/practices Focus on maximizing student interactions across categories of Spanish and English proficiency and academic performance Focus on language development through meaningful interactions and communications Table 2. Subtractive Conceptual Dimensions of Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Diversity School-wide Practices A vision defined by the learning of English--Americanization/assimilation is the goal Professional development characterized a focus on direct teaching, emphasizing instruction of


6 of 30 phonology, grammar and phonics in readingElimination (gradual or immediate) of policies that seek to provide special instruction to a category o f students marked by their non-English proficiency Connection to surrounding community--particularly with the families of the students attending the school emphasizing the development and use of English Teacher Practices English development skills and awareness Expectations that English proficiency by students will enhance academic achievement Treatment of linguistic diversity as a characterist ic that must be minimized Ongoing professional development and direct enforcement of direct teaching practices Basis of curriculum development to address cultural and linguistic assimilation Attention to and integration of diverse cultures in to the "norm" Focus on maximizing student academic English development as assessed by English language development and academic testing--in many cases, "high stakes" testing Focus on English language, reading and literacy development through methods of direct instructions of skills The subtractive position advanced by Proposition 22 7—as summarized by the practices embodied in Table 2—is contrasted by mult iculturalist and multilingualist notions that English-only instruction is deeply pro blematic. Rather than view the home language and culture through a lens of deficit multiculturalist and additive perspectives urge schools to see these as valuable educational resources. (Banks, 1995; Garcia, 1999; Gutirrez, et al., 2000; Olneck 1995). Proposition 227 presents a direct challenge to the notion that languages oth er than English have a legitimate and valuable place in the education of diverse stud ents. Hence, the normative assumptions underlying Proposition 227 position the language and culture of diverse students in a subordinate and inferior role to Engl ish (Auerbach, 1995; Cummins, 2000; Kerper-Mora, 2000).These normative assumptions have important conseque nces that extend beyond the classroom. The nature of the law works to posit ion certain groups in a peripheral role in American society. Sekhon (1999), in an arti cle assessing the legal and political implications of the proposition, argues t hat Proposition 227 positions immigrants on the outside of mainstream America: Proposition 227 positions English as “our” language by constructing it as


7 of 30 our unlearned capacity: It is our birthright. The p roposition differentiates “us” from “them” by denominating them in terms of a n essential inability to call English their own. They must learn it. Prop osition 227 not only demands that they learn our language, it demands th at they forget their own. In so demanding, the proposition not only unle ashes a salvo in the bilingual education debate, but is a crucial moment in the broader debate over assimilation and acculturation. (p. 1445) Thus, in its scope, focus, and ideological implicat ions, Proposition 227 differs markedly from past educational reforms. Teachers we re not only told to shift educational practice, but forced to participate in an evolving debate about which theory would hold prominence in the education of la nguage minority students. The distinction between additive and subtractive concep tions becomes a useful device for probing teachers’ existing theories regarding t heir students, and how those theories interacted with district and school decisi ons regarding Proposition 227 to establish a context for classroom practice. Competing Theories in Action: A District’s Response s to 227To understand how competing theories regarding the education of language minority students materialize into action, we examine select findings from one district’s implementation of Proposition 227. Focusing on the responses of three teachers in the district, we examine how additive and subtracti ve theories influenced and shaped the nature of Proposition 227 implementation Walton Unified School DistrictDespite its attempt to prescribe a very uniform sol ution for the education of linguistically and culturally diverse students acro ss the state of California, the law’s impact on education of ELL students has varied wide ly from district to district, school to school, and in some cases classroom to classroom Garcia & Curry-Rodriguez (2000) and Gandara et al. (2000) report that certai n districts across the state have used the waiver clause of the law to pursue distric t wide waivers, others have implemented the English Only provisions of the law, and a third group has left the primary decisions up to individual schools. The imp lementation decisions made by “Westway” and “Open Valley,” the two elementary sch ools which are the focus of this research, represent a microcosm of what occurr ed across the state. Each school took actions based upon “competing ideologie s” about how schools should respond to the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity. Walton Unified School District devised a plan that maximized flexibility for Westway and Open Valley. Under the plan, the schools could choose between maintaining their bilingual programs through the parental waive r process, or developing a program for ELL students called “English Language D evelopment” (ELD). At Westway Elementary, all students who had been in bilingual programs were placed in self-contained ELD classes. The context f or Proposition 227 implementation at Westway Elementary was shaped by the school’s positive orientation towards English-only instruction and cu rricular control arrangements. The decision to shift to English-only was made by the s chool’s veteran principal, ‘Beverly Elmherst,’ who in the past had tended away from hir ing certified bilingual teachers.


8 of 30 Consequently, the school had only three teachers wh o held the Bilingual Crosscultural Language and Academic Development (BL CAD) certificate. This hiring pattern meant there were very few strong advocates for maintaining the school’s program.The school’s movement away from primary language us e coincided with the state-wide decade-long movement toward phonics-base d reading instruction and away from meaning-based or whole language instructi on. A series of laws passed throughout the 1990s culminated in the California R eading Initiative (CRI), a collaborative effort between the state legislature, the Governor, and the California Department of Education. The new policy advocates a balanced approach to literacy instruction. It defines balanced literacy instructi on with a definitive nod toward decoding and direct phonics instruction: A balanced approach involves considerable time and effort dedicated to basic decoding while attention is given to import ant meaning-based aspects of reading. For most students,however, inte nsive direct teaching of phonemic awareness, sound-symbol relationships, blending skills, and reading fluency is of primary importance. (CRI, p. 4) The changes in literacy policy have positioned phon ics and phonemic awareness as the primary concerns for early literacy instruction Consistent with the move on the state the level tow ard phonics-based instruction, in February of 1998, the school adopted Open Court Col lections for Young Scholars (hereafter, Open Court) as the school wide language arts series. Open Court uses explicit teacher-directed instruction to teach phon emic awareness, phonics, and reading comprehension. During the instructional com ponents of the program, which include teacher-directed writing and reading exerci ses, and skills practice drills, teachers use scripts for all teacher questions, pro mpts, and responses. During blending, a center piece of the program, teachers r ead all sounds of a word and have students repeat them. Reading and writing acti vities are tightly controlled by the teacher. While the school-wide context at Westway was charac terized by a lack of curricular freedom and a climate favorable to English-only, th e local school context at Open Valley was quite different. First, the overall clim ate of the school showed an overwhelming commitment to the goals of bilingual a nd multicultural education. Second, teachers at Open Valley experienced a great deal of curricular freedom. In the fall of 1999, the teachers at the school mobili zed to secure parental waivers in order to maintain the school’s bilingual program. N early every child who was in a bilingual program prior to the proposition was in a bilingual program in the fall of 1999. To avoid a second year of the waiver process in the spring of 1999, the teachers and administration of Open Valley applied for and received Charter status. Under California law, Charter status gave the schoo l curricular flexibility and freedom from the direct mandates of Proposition 227 TeachersThe research on the implementation of Proposition 2 27 focused on four teachers—two at both Open Valley and Westway. At Op en Valley, the research


9 of 30 focused on two teachers, “Elisa” and “Angelica”.Angelica, a fifth year teacher, came to teaching th rough her involvement in a migrant education program as an undergraduate. Although she was only in her late-20s, she had taught Sunday School for 12 years. She credited her experience with the migrant education program and her work in Sunday Sc hool as having a large influence on her teaching. She was born in Mexico, but attended school in California when her parents immigrated. During the year of the study, Angelica taught a 2ndgrade bilingual class of approximately 18 students. The second grade students in her class received language arts and math instructi on in Spanish. Instruction in the afternoon, which included art, ESL, and social stud ies, occurred in English. Born in Mexico, Elisa was educated in California an d grew up in the Central Valley. She had been a teacher for four years—all of them a t Open Valley and each in a different grade. During the 1999-2000 academic year Elisa taught a 3rd grade bilingual classroom of approximately 14-20 students Elisa’s decision to enter teaching was closely related to her experiences as a child. Elisa had worked in the fields of the Central Valley, and felt that experie nce helped her to identify with the instructional and social needs of her immigrant stu dents. Two teachers, “Celia” and “Connie”, were the focus of the research at Westway, but in this paper we present findings only related to C onnie. We have chosen to focus on Connie to examine the manner in which existing d eficit orientations in teachers interact with a subtractive policy context. Additio nally, Celia’s rather complex and multifaceted reaction to Proposition 227 implementa tion has been examined in another article (Stritikus, in press).Connie, a Portuguese-American with 11 years of teac hing experience, had always been assigned a bilingual classroom but never remem bers requesting to be a bilingual teacher. Because the structure of the bil ingual program prior to Proposition 227 placed native language instructional responsibi lity in the hands of teaching aides, Connie never worked directly with her immigr ant students in the area of primary language instruction. During the study, Con nie taught a 3rd grade, self-contained English Language Development class of 20 students. Data Collection and AnalysisThe research began in the spring of 1998-1999 and c ontinued the research through the end of the 1999-2000 academic year. The researc h took place at Westway Elementary and Open Valley Elementary, the two larg est schools in the small rural district of Walton Unified.Stritikus used multiple sources of data to build a picture of the implementation of Proposition 227, and observed the teachers in a hos t of different situations including classroom literacy instruction, grade-level meeting s, all-school meetings, and district-level meetings concerning ELL issues. In a ddition, each teacher and other key participants in the district were interviewed. Stritikus observed each of the teachers’ classrooms a minimum of 21 times. During classroom observations, Stritikusfocused on the nat ure of literacy instruction.


10 of 30 Scratch-notes (Emerson, et al 1995) and audio recordings from observations were used to create detailed fieldnotes. After Stritikus left the research site in May 2000, he completed a close reading of the entire set of f ieldnotes looking for “certain words, phrases, patterns of behavior, subjects’ way s of thinking, and events that stand out” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992: 166). During the se initial read-throughs, he asked questions of the data which centered on build ing an understanding of how teachers’ beliefs and theories influenced literacy instruction in their post-Proposition 227 classrooms (Emerson, et al 1995; Glasser & Strauss, 1967). To address each question, analytic commentaries grounded in the dat a were written. The analytic commentaries served as the basis of the themes gene rated from the data and were central in the development of codes and data analys is.FindingsThe manner in which the three teachers responded an d reacted to Proposition 227 is illustrative of the way that subtractive and add itive theories compete to shape the nature of the policy to practice connection. In lar ge part, teachers guiding theories about their students influenced the way they mediat ed and negotiated the policy shifts brought about by changes in bilingual educat ion policy. In the following sections, we explicate the connection between class room practice and policy shifts by examining the role that teachers’ theories playe d in the process. We highlight how aspects of a subtractive policy context brought certain aspects of teachers’ additive or subtractive theories to the surface in their decision making process. Teachers’ Theories in Programs that Retained Biling ual Education For Angelica and Elisa remarkably similar guiding t heories drove their intellectual work at the school. Each teacher believed that nati ve language instruction provided significant academic, cognitive, social, and cultur al benefits for their students. For both teaches, the academic and cultural benefits of bilingualism were inextricable linked and strengthened their resolve and commitmen t to bilingual education. Angelica described her theory on the manner in whic h language minority students could most attain academic success: Yes, it is hard to remain a bilingual. But, if you don’t give students a base—the foundation that the child needs to use aga inst the second language—success in the second language is not goin g to happen. Basically, we are all here in this America. And, we do all need to speak the language of this country, but that doesn’t mean that we have to let go of our language. (Angelica, Interview, May, 2000) For Angelica, academic success and participation in American society did not mean that students had to sacrifice elements of their so cial and cultural identities. For her, these identities served as the basis for student su ccess. Angelica believed that Proposition 227, and its supporters, were asking La tino student to leave crucial elements of their culture and language behind. She saw her role as a teacher to ensure that this didn’t happen at Open Valley.Elisa echoed many of Angelica’s theories about the benefits of bilingualism and native language instruction. In addition, she saw t he use of native language


11 of 30 instruction as direct part of a strategy of the adv ancement of Latino students. The genesis of this theory was related to her own exper iences as a migrant farm worker: The sun was coming out at five o’clock in the morni ng. I was there alone. There was nobody in the field. I was just left ther e and I was waiting for the people to get there. I was maybe fourteen or fi fteen. I kept thinking: What I am going to do? I didn’t want to work in the fields for the rest of my life. That’s actually what brought me up wanting to teach. It’s like: I want to do something productive for my people—for t he kids and parents who work in the fields because I saw how hard they work and they really didn’t make any money. So, I wanted to make a diffe rence. That’s why I became a bilingual teacher. (Elisa, Interview, Apri l, 2000) Both teachers’ guiding theories saw bilingualism as a social and academic resource and viewed tapping into students' existing linguist ic capacity as the best way to ensure their academic success. The teachers possess ed theories which allowed for student to be multilingual and still play valuable and meaningful roles in U.S. society. For both teachers, these theories had their roots i n their personal experiences and the benefits of bilingualism they had gained as wel l as hardship they experienced in schools which did not value their linguistic divers ity. From Theory to Action: Teaching in a Bilingual Scho ol For Angelica and Elisa, theories about language min ority students lead to particular types of responses to policy shifts. Angelica, for example, became a very vocal proponent for bilingual education after the passage of Proposition 227. She used her standing in the school to rally support for the school’s bilingual program and helped secure the parental waivers necessary to con tinue bilingual education at the school. Each teacher used native language instructi on in real and substantial ways in their classroom, which included assessments done in English and Spanish. Both teachers commented that Proposition 227 had renewed their commitments to bilingual education. Angelica continually looked fo r opportunities to defend the school’s program and petitioned the district for re sources related to bilingual education.For Elisa, her renewed commitment was directly rela ted to the manner in which she saw language use in her classroom: Creo que me hizo un poco mas rebelde [I think it ha s made me bit more rebellious] about using Spanish. Before I was like I shouldn’t speak in Spanish, because we are being asked to move away fr om bilingual education. But, now, I don’t feel that way. (Elisa, Interview, April, 2000) Her commentary illustrates the manner in which the subtractive policy context brought certain elements of teachers’ theories to t he surface as they negotiated aspects of Proposition 227.To understand the manner in which teachers’ theorie s serve to mediate their responses to policy shifts, we present the followin g data excerpt from the first day of English-guiding reading groups in Elisa’s third gra de classroom. The event illustrates her attempt to create an additive context for learn ing in her classroom.


12 of 30 Elisa commented that the debate over Proposition 22 7 had made her more committed to making sure that her the students saw their home language as a resource. On the first day of English guided readin g, Elisa lead each of the groups that she worked with through a series of activities in Spanish. Each of the five groups she worked with examined a picture of animal Elisa solicited comments from the students about the animal. After having a conve rsation about the picture, Elisa gave the students five minutes to write a few sente nces about the picture. The following conversation occurred between Elisa and E rnesto, Rosa, Cristbal, Betty, and Daniel after they had concluded the activity. ElisaStudentsActionOk, aydame. Qu eslo que estamoshaciendo? (2) Por questamos haciendoesto? Ernesto: (dutifully) Aprender.Rosa: Para aprender losdibujos. Cristbal: Para aprenderms palabras. All the students have raised their hands and she is calling on them by touching her hand in front of the students. Para aprender palabras? Rosa: Para hacer como agarrar palabras de un dibujo. [E repeats RosaÂ’sresponse.] Y paraÂ… loque dijiste ahorita. Siven como acerlo enespaol. Y cmovamos aprender elingls. Cristbal: (take turn without hand up) Para aprender el ingls. Ernesto: Aprendiendo palabras. Aprendiendo palabras. Elsa: (Hand up--Officially recognized) Tenemos que saber como lo hacemos en espaolprimero y luego es msfcil hacerlo en ingls. Si cuando estamos con un dibujo, y Daniel: Oraciones!


13 of 30 tenemos palabras, y de las palabras quhacemos?De estas oracionesqu podemos hacer? Ss: Prrafo. At this point the pace of the discussion quickens. De un prrafo qupodemos hacer? Ss: Un captuloUn resumenEnsayos. Qu tiene que ver estocon el ingls? Daniel: Yo voy a saber las palabras que tiene que responder.Betty: Puedes poner tree en vez de rbol (She ispointing at the white board where Elisa had written some of the sentences students had generated.) After Betty’s comments Elisaasks the students using“what can I put in place of..”with each of the Spanishwords that they had come upwith to describe the picture.The student excitedly call outthe English words. Si saben las palabras en ingls, podemoshacer oraciones eningls.Ss: S.Y luego podemos hacerprrafos.Ss: S.Luego podemos hacer ensayosen ingls. After this exchange, Elisa tells the students that when they are learning a second language their mind will have to work extra hard, a nd that sometimes they will have to think first in Spanish to get the job done.English Translation ElisaStudentsActionOk, help me out. What are we doing? Why are we doing this?


14 of 30 Ernesto: (dutifully) Tolearn.Rosa: To learn aboutdrawings.Cristbal: To learn words. All the students have raised their hands and she is calling on themby touching her hand infront of the students. To learn words? Rosa: To learn how to take words from a picture. [E repeats Rosa’sresponse.] Y for…What do you just say?You can see how wedo it in Spanish Y howare we going to learnEnglish? Cristbal: (take turn w/ohand up) To learn English. Ernesto: Learning words. Learning words. Elsa: (Hand up--Officially recognized) We have to know how to do it inSpanish first and then it will be easier to do it in English. Yes, and when we are working with a picture, and we have words, forthe words what do we make?Daniel: Sentences And from those sentences what can you do? Ss: Paragraphs. At this point the pace of the discussion quickens. From one paragraph what can we do? Ss: A chapterA summaryAn essay What does all this have to do with English? Daniel: I’ll know the wordsI need to know to answerthe questions.Betty: You can put ‘tree’[said in English.] in placeof arbol. (she is pointing After Betty’s commentsElisa asks the studentsusing “que puedo poner envez” with each of the Spanish words that they


15 of 30 at the white board whereElisa had written some ofthe sentences studentshad generated.) student excitedly call outthe words. If you know English, can we do sentences in English?Ss: Yes.And later can we do paragraphs?Ss: Yes.And later can we do essays?Ss: Yes. The nature of teacher and student interaction on th e first day of English guided reading was very telling. The message of the exchan ge was clear: “If you can do it in Spanish, you can do it English.” Students were eage r participants in these types of conversations and shared stories about bilingual re latives or about community members who spoke English and Spanish fluentlyElisa’s decision to establish an instructional cont ext in which Spanish was presented to the students as a direct way to make sense of En glish also had important consequences in terms of the way students approache d learning tasks in the guided reading group. During the interaction of this group the students eagerly explored the new ways they would be able to use English. Her fra ming of learning English as an activity created a sense of excited energy for the students. This excitement surfaced as the students discussed what they would one day b e able to do with English. Daniel proclaims that he “will know the words that he has to know to respond [to questions].” And, Betty unsolicited offers her Engl ish knowledge to the group suggesting that Elisa substitute the tree for Spani sh word “arbol.” Elisa created an additive context in which she encouraged students t o capitalize on their existing linguistic resources during their acquisition of En glish. The context established by Elisa made it clear to the students that Spanish wa s viewed as a language learning resource by their teacher. Because the focus of the study was to understand teachers’ conceptions of bilingualism, we can not w ith certainty claim that this additive conception had a direct impact on students ’ conceptions of their own bilingualism. For Elisa, however, her additive conc eptions of bilingualism had influenced the manner in which she reacted to the s ubtractive policy context created by Proposition 227.Angelica: Bring the Fight to Her ClassroomAngelica’s commitment to bilingual education stemme d from the instances of racism she experienced as a child in American schools. She believed that her language and culture had been “devalued” by her own school e xperience. The nature of literacy instruction in her classroom seemed to be a direct response to her experience and the subtractive logic behind Proposi tion 227. Angelica’s saw Proposition 227 as a direct challenge to her abilit y to provide an additive education for her Latino students: When Proposition 227 was happening: I saw a lot of Mexicanos on the


16 of 30 news that said: Yeah, we live in this country and w e have to speak English. Who are you to speak for somebody else? Th at’s your opinion and maybe you don’t want to be bilingual and maybe you fell in love with culture and left your past behind. But, there are m any of us who don’t want to leave our past behind (Angelica, Interview, May 2000). Angelica strongly rejected the assimilationist impl ications of Proposition 227, and saw her classroom as the place to begin to counter the influence of the new law. In the area of literacy instruction, Angelica belie ved that reading comprehension would improve if students were able to “see themsel ves in the story.” In her perpetual “fight” for her students, Angelica learne d a great deal about the lives of her students. She learned about their families, the ir siblings, and their home environments. Her knowledge of the students’ social worlds was manifested in her interaction with them. Angelica used the knowledge that she had of the students to help them negotiate the stories they read. In helpi ng the students access this knowledge in their negotiations of the written text s, she used a questioning strategy that facilitated student participation (Garcia, 199 9; Jimenez & Gersten, 1999). These strategies were evident in the following literacy e vent as Angelica had a pre-reading discussion with a small reading group. On the first day of her work with the group, she ha d given the students extended turns to talk about their experience with pets in their homes and neighborhoods. Over the course of reading the s tory, Angelica frequently drew upon those discussions in her quest ions about the story. During this event, Angelica integrated knowledge ab out her students directly into the instructional discourse.Six boys are seated at the reading table. The boys are about to read the story “Enrique y Pancho.” Angelica tells the students that they are going to read a story about a narrator who is an only child, and that she wants t hem to think about what life might be like for an only child. AngelicaStudentsActionEn un a familiapequea juegas solo,que tienes que haceren una familia grande? Cesar. As Angelica is asking the question, Cesar has pushed his chair three feet awayfrom the reading table. He is looking around the roomwith a blank stare. Cesar: Eh, Yo no s.(Sternly) Piensa. Si en una familia pequeajuegas solo-que tnada ms fueras elnico nio en tu casa--T tienes que jugar contus juguetes solito,


17 of 30 verdad? (2) Cesar: (looking up with asort of “you caught megrin”) Si alguienestaba? Y si est Anna (hissister) y todos tus hermanitos, qudebes hacer con tusjuguetes? Cesar: Eh?


18 of 30 after AngelicaÂ’s initialquestions has a strainedlook on his face--as if hecanÂ’t wait to participate. Hishand was initially raised, buthe lowers it as Angelica talksto Cesar. His eager facialexpression neverdiminishes. (Continuing off of his lastcomment) Â…Ya no, mihermano y Anna nopueden jugar juntos, yeste OK, pero Cesar. Si tjuegas solo en tu casa,y como t tienes unafamilia grande, qudebes hacer.Compartir o jugarsolo? Cesar: Compartir con otros. (pauses and smiles) Tengo quecompartir mis juguetes. A: Muy bien, estn deacuerdo con Cesar? Other boys: (With enthusiasm) S! Juan: (speaking out without being formally acknowledge byAngelica) Iba a decir compar compar (Excitedly to the rest of the group). Es lo que ibaa decir. Juego con todos. The other boys at the table nod eagerly at Juan. In the moments that followed this interaction, the students were told to open their reading books. When they did, they read with the en thusiasm and expression of a stage performance.English Translation


19 of 30 Angelica Students Action In a small family you play alone, what do you have to do in a big family? Cesar. As Angelica is asking the question, Cesar has pushed hischair three feet away from the reading table. He is looking around the room with a blankstare. Cesar: Eh, (quicklyand chewing hiswords) I don’t know. (Sternly) Think, if in asmall family you playalone—and you arethe only kid in yourhouse—You have toplay alone, right? Cesar: (looking upwith a sort of “youcaught me grin”) Ifsome one is there? And if Anna is there and all your brother and sisters, what doyou have to do with your toys? Cesar: Eh? What do you have to do with your toys if all your brothers and sisters are in thehouse? Cesar: They play.Who do you play with? Cesar: With my brother. Only with him or with the others? Cesar: With theothers… OK, give me a sentence. (Continuing off of hislast comment) …Now


20 of 30 OK, but Cesar. If you play alone in the house, and how youhave a large family, what do you have to do? Share or play alone? Cesar: Share with the others. (pauses and smiles) I have toshare my toys. A: Very good do you agree with Cesar? Other boys: (With enthusiasm) Yes A: I am going to write plays with others. Juan: (speaking out without being formally acknowledge byAngelica) I was going to say sha shar Juan: (Excitedly to the rest of the group). That is what I was going toso. I play with everyone. A writes “You play with theothers” in the column under “Alarge family.” This exchange and the questioning strategy used by Angelica demonstrated the place that students’ home culture had in shaping th e nature of literacy instruction. By capitalizing on her knowledge of Cesar’s home life, Angelica gave him a way to be a meaningful participant in a discussion that he had otherwise started to ignore. The knowledge she had of his family had come from the m any visits she had made to his home. Her knowledge of his social and cultural worl d served as an instructional life preserver allowing Cesar to construct a response to a question to which he was struggling to respond. Literacy research has long d ocumented that making space in the official curriculum for the lives of students o pens up new avenues for students’ learning (Dyson, 1993). Angelica’s decisions in lit eracy instruction represented her commitments to creating a meaning-centered literacy learning context for her students. Garcia (1999) and Jimenez and Gersten (19 99) have documented that such an approach is essential in the literacy devel opment of Latino children. In addition, the nature and shape of the discussion had the effect of keeping all students engaged—even Juan—who although he was not able to participate in the direct exchange was still able to share that “this is what I was going to say.” Angelica set the stage for this exchange by informing the bo ys that were having this discussion for a particular reason—a reason directl y connected to their ability to relate to the story they were about to read. Additive Theories Summary


21 of 30 Elisa and Angelica took steps in and out of their c lassroom to limit the impact of Proposition 227 on their school’s bilingual program Angelica was a central player in securing parental waivers necessary to maintain the school’s bilingual program. Elisa became “mas rebelde” (more rebellious) and mo re purposeful in her attempts to bridge her students’ Spanish and English literac y development. As a first grade teacher, Angelica was primarily responsible for Spa nish literacy development. As the third grade teacher in the school’s bilingual progr am, Elisa was primarily responsible for ‘transitioning’ the students from instruction p rimarily in Spanish to instruction primarily in English Given the differences in the ir teaching situations, cross case comparisons are difficult. None the less, similar t hemes did emerge in the coding of teacher-run literacy from both classrooms. The codi ng of these events highlight the additive nature of the classroom contexts created b y the two teacher. Both teachers created contexts which the following types of inter actions were most prominent: Events of Story Question. Teacher questions soliciting retelling or summary of events from a story. Creating/building on Intertextuality. Comments or questions that drew upon students’ social and cultural lives as resources in understanding stories the class read. Concept Question. Questions that asked students to draw conclusions or make inferences about events or concepts in stories During English instruction, teachers encouraged students to respon d in Spanish if they were not able to do so in English. Turn Extension. Comments or questions by teachers that extended st udent turns. Because we did not collect any data prior to the pa ssage of Proposition 227, it is not clear if teachers demonstrated this type of literac y prior to its passage. Thus, Proposition 227 did not cause an additive orientati on for Elisa and Angelica, but rather their experiences of the Post-227 context re inforced and refined their existing additive conception of their students and bilingual ism. Subtractive Theories of Education for Language Mino rity Students To understand the connection between subtractive th eories for language minority students and classroom practice, we present the cas e of Connie, a third grade teacher at Westway Elementary. Connie’s case is ill ustrative of how teachers’ existing subtractive theories materialize in classr oom practice. Her case is instructive because her theory regarding the educat ion of language minority students mirrored the theories of many schooland districtleaders who eliminated their bilingual education programs after the passag e of Proposition 227 (Garcia & Curry-Rodriguez, 2000). Proposition 227 did not cau se her subtractive orientation but rather reinforced it and gave her new opportuni ties to act upon it. Connie’s theories surrounding her students were und ergirded by two major beliefs about the education of language minority students. First, she believed that the English language served as a unifying force in the United States that was undermined by multilingualism. In this sense, Conni e was in striking agreement with much of the political discourse surrounding both th e English-only and anti-bilingual education movements. In an interview, Connie commen ted, “I totally agree that


22 of 30 English should be the language of this country. You need to have some ba se and I think English needs to be the base here.” A child o f Portuguese immigrants, Connie resented the “special treatment” that she felt Lati no children and families received. She viewed bilingual education as one such “special treatment.” Second, Connie believed that her students’ academic progress was severely limited by their use of Spanish. Thus, rather than seeing s tudents’ primary language as a resource, she saw it as one of their primary weakne sses: My students’ problem is that they rely too much on their Spanish. I know a lot of them came from 2nd grade classes where they spoke Spanish all the time to the teacher. It makes a big difference. My goal is that they learn as much vocabulary as they can, learn to spea k grammatically correct, and have their adjectives and nouns in the right places. (Connie, Interview, December, 1999) Connie felt that the students’ use of Spanish inter fered with their acquisition of English. This subtractive theory differs shapely wi th the important theoretical work done in the area of second language acquisition str essing the transfer of academic and cognitive skills independent of language (Cummi ns, 1979). From Subtractive Theory to Subtractive Practice Connie’s theory about language minority students r esulted in a particular kind of educational practice which did not focus on the cul tural, social, and linguistic resources brought by her students. Watered-down and deficit-based literacy practice in the new policy environment reflected Connie’s in structional goals and expectations for her students (Gersten & Woodward, 1992; Ramirez, 1992). A significant amount of instructional time focused on phonetic exactness—moments in instruction when Connie focused on the components a nd sounds of words. During these interactions Connie’s emphasis was on correct pronunciation and strict adherence to following directions. Coding of litera cy events revealed that Connie’s literacy practice centered on the following types o f interactions: Word Meaning Connie asked the students about the meaning of an individual word. She used the word in a sentence until the stu dents could supply a synonym. Conventions Connie asked the students about the punctuation o f a particular sentence, or she asked students to identify words t hat were particular parts of speech in the text. Phonetic Exactness Connie worked with the students to ensure the pro per pronunciation of English words and phonemes. Her emphasis on these three types of interactions w as influenced by the nature of the Open Court program and its literacy material. D uring teacher run reading events, Connie seldom asked questions regarding the story e vents or the plot. Connie often asked students to identify compound words or to cir cle long vowels. Such interaction contributed to the treatment of text as a puzzle. T exts were viewed as little more than the sum total of their phonetic or grammatical values. During literacy instruction, Connie closely adhered to the script o f the Open Court teacher’s manual. Open Court activities dominated her instruc tional day. Beyond the 40


23 of 30 minutes that Connie spent in math instruction, the entire day was occupied with Open Court literacy activities.The following literacy event, highlights the nature of literacy instruction in Connie’s classroom and the manner that Connie’s beliefs abou t her students, which were in large part influenced by her own familiar experienc e, seemed to influence the enactment of such literacy practice. Connie stood at the front of the class and had just read the first problem of the worksheet. She instructed students that they were supposed to circle each long vowel sound in each of the sentenc es and write the word in the long vowel column. This was the third in a s eries of worksheets the class had done that day. Connie completed the first three sentences with the students. In each sentence, her pattern was fai rly consistent. She read the sentence and asked the students which word s in the sentence had a long vowel sound. Students were not allowed t o pick up their pencils until the class had identified all the long vowel sounds. During the first three sentences, a few student called answers without being officially recognized. When this happened on the 4th sentence, Connie said, “Since you seem to have no problem with this activity you can do it on your own.”Ruben and Miguel, who were seated on the opposite s ide of the room from where I was, excitedly rubbed their hands toge ther. I got up from my seat and sat behind Miguel, a child who always seem ed to have a smile on his face.Miguel: (Reading number 5) (Reads in a flat tone wi th no questioning intonation.) Will Pat go to the store. (Pauses for a moment) Will Pat go to the store. (Flat intonation). Will Pat…Pat go to t he store? (An almost raised but unnatural intonation on store). [He rais es his head from the text]. That doesn’t make any sense. (almost smugly) Don’t matter. [He picks up his pencil and writes the words “go” and “ store” in the Long O column.] This literacy event highlighted many of the themes which emerged from the study of Connie’s classroom. Classroom instruction focused o n the component parts of reading. Connie’s comfort with this focus was relat ed to her views about the instructional needs of her students. The event also highlighted the tightly controlled nature of literacy events. In the activity—as was t he case with many others—students were allowed to do the work indepen dently only as a form of punishment. Lastly, the event indicated the nature of students’ experiences of literacy curriculum which stressed skills over mean ing. Connie believed that her students would experience success if they stopped speaking Spanish in the classroom. During grade lev el teacher meetings, Connie voiced this position. Her comments generally relate d to “deficits” in the students (Lipman, 1998). While it is highly likely that Conn ie’s deficit perspectives of her students existed prior to Proposition 227, she note d that Proposition 227 had allowed her to act on her beliefs about the needs o f her students in ways that she had not been able to. Because she was convinced tha t several issues outside the


24 of 30 realm of her classroom contributed to the academic failure of the students, she took no actions to the change the programmatic and curri cular actions at the school. Connie’s ideological alignment with the law and her views about her students played a large role in the connection between policy and p ractice in her classroom. The following literacy exchange taken from a field note entry occurred early in the year and was indicative of her priorities and perception s: Connie told the class that she wants them to work o n their reading comprehension, and that to do so they are going to read stories on worksheets that will help them understand other sto ries better. Connie told the students to place their fingers under the first word and called on individual students to read a story about a snow fl ake. The story was a part of the first grade skills practice of Open Cou rt. She called on Sonia, who struggles to read the first sentence of the eig ht sentence story. Connie said, “OK, Sonia, since Luis is ready to rea d I am going to give him a chance.” Luis, a recent immigrant in the clas s with very strong decoding skills did not understand Connie’s request as a request to read because he wasn’t called on directly. He stared at Sonia and then turned his gaze back to the teacher. Connie nodded at him, and he still looked confused. A student sitting next to him said in a q uiet voice, “Tienes que leerlo” [You have to read it.] Connie clinches her fist, “Uhg,” she said with great exasperation, “Don’t say it in Spanish!” (Oct ober 21, 2000). The event which was similar to many literacy events in Connie’s classrooms speaks to two beliefs that guided her approach to classroo m literacy instruction: 1) Spanish was a detriment to her students’ academic progress, and 2) what her students needed most were the “basics.” Connie’s interactio n with the local school context influenced the way these beliefs surfaced in her cl assroom literacy practice She noted that the move to English-only made her feel m ore comfortable in stopping her students from speaking Spanish in the classroom.Subtractive SummaryFor Connie, Proposition 227 offered an opportunity to enact a subtractive version of language and literacy practice in her classroom. Li teracy instruction in her classroom was heavily influenced by her theories about her st udents and their bilingualism. Proposition 227 and its subtractive implications fo r the schooling of culturally and linguistically diverse students complemented Connie ’s existing views of her students and gave her liberty to attempt to restrict and lim it students’ use of Spanish in her classroom. While we do not claim that Connie’s use of the Open Court literacy series is representative of all uses of the program Connie’s case illustrates how teachers with subtractive theories of their student s might utilize and implement aspects of similar skills-based scripted literacy p rograms.ConclusionCalifornia has begun a weighty experiment in the in struction of language minority students based upon subtractive theories of educati on. The underlying theory of Proposition 227 suggests that linguistic diversity is a problem in need of correction,


25 of 30 and instruction exclusively in English provides the best therapy for such deficiencies. Such a theory of instruction suggests that the prim ary role of schooling is Americanization. Proposition 227 is not just a theory, but one of th e dominating policy voices in California and the nation guiding the schooling of linguistically diverse students. Given that teachers will continue to be the last li ne of implementation in this growing policy trend, it is important consider various aspe cts of the roles they play. In this article, we have chosen to focus on the role that t eachersÂ’ existing theories about their students play in the way they reacted to aspe cts of Proposition 227. To understand the range of teachersÂ’ theories, we have presented distinctions between additive and subtractive conceptions of language mi nority students. The distinction between additive and subtractive co nceptions of schooling for culturally and linguistically diverse students are a useful tool for understanding how teachersÂ’ existing theories were complemented or co ntrasted by Proposition 227 implementation. For Angelica and Elisa, the two tea chers with strong additive conceptions of schooling, Proposition 227 served to strengthen their commitments to bilingual education. Their renewed commitments w ere evident in the manner in which they framed their classroom practice in relat ion to Proposition 227. Elisa asserted that Proposition 227 had made her more det ermined to use students primary language as a resource; and, Angelica, comp ared Proposition 227 to getting knocked down in a soccer game: Proposition 227 really pushed the people that did b elieve in continuing fighting for our dream. ItÂ’s like a soccer game. You didnÂ’t make the goal. Oh, well. You have a chance of getting up and trying again. Soccer players fall many times during a game. They trip ov er each other. We can trip over these polices and fall over these law s. You can trip me, and IÂ’ll fall, but IÂ’m going to get up again. IÂ’ll keep going. When things like Proposition 227 happen, just donÂ’t trip, fall, and stay laying down. (Angelica, Interview, May, 2000) Angelica saw Proposition 227 as one major impedimen t to enacting an additive conception of education, but she saw it as a challe nge she could and would overcome.The additive conceptions possessed by Elisa and Ang elica served as a basis for how they reacted to and mediated aspects of Proposi tion 227 implementation. Angelica was a key member in securing parental waiv ers at the school which enabled the school to maintain its bilingual progra m. Both teachers saw the manner in which they constructed their classroom literacy practice as a response to the political and pedagogical implications of Propositi on 227 implementation. They considered their attempts to create an additive cla ssroom context for their students as ways to fight for bilingual education. Thus, the teachersÂ’ additive conceptions played a significant role in the actions the two te achers took in and out of their classroom contexts.For Connie, her subtractive conceptions of her stud ents were complemented by the political and pedagogical implications of Propositi on 227. In many senses, the subtractive policy context served to clarify her pe dagogical purpose. A she


26 of 30 interacted with the local policy context, the resul t was an enactment of practice which was a direct match of the intent of the new l aw. As her students became more resistant and distant based upon their experience o f Open Court, she became more convinced that her students needed more “basic” ins truction. As her experience as part of family that “made it” without any special p rograms influenced her views of the policy, she become more convinced that any Spanish usage in her class was detrimental to student learning. She enacted puniti ve rules for students who used Spanish and noted that Proposition 227 had given he r the feeling that this was a proper course of action to take.The importance of teachers’ theories and beliefs ha s been supported by Wiese’s (2001) examinations of a policy and practice at a d ual language immersion school after the passage of Proposition 227. She found tha t the manner in which Federal and State educational policy is reconstructed at sc hool level was highly influenced by teachers’ theories about their students, instruc tion, and the world around them. Seeking the day when all language minority student s will conclude that what they do in their classrooms does matter, we suggest that the theories that teachers hold about their students and instruction play a monumen tal role in the face of educational polices designed to lead to specific pr actices. Theories can bolster the intent of the policy, as was the case with Connie a nd the teachers at Westway Elementary, or theories can provide teachers with a powerful basis to resist and reshape the intended consequences of certain polici es. If teachers are to capitalize on the linguistic, cognitive, and cultural resource s which language minority students bring to the classroom, then those concerned with e ducation must continue to pursue and develop substantial ways to support and develop additive conceptions of linguistic diversity in teachers.ReferencesAuerbach, E. (1995). The politics of the ESL classr oom: Issues of power in pedagogical choices. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education New York: Cambridge Press. 9-33. Banks, J.A. (1995). Multicultural education: Histor ical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A Banks, & C. A. McGee-Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp 3-34). New York: Macmillan. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and qualitative methodology. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon. Cohen, D. K. & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Pedagogy and p olicy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Issues for policy and p ractice (pp. 207239). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 34 46-49. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children i n the crossfire Great Britain: Multilingual Matters. Dyson, A. Haas. (1993). Negotiating the permeable curriculum: On the interp lay between teacher’s and children’s worlds Urbana, IL: NCTE Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gandra, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garca, E., Asato, J., Gutirrez, K., Stritikus, T., & Curry, J. (2000 ). The


27 of 30 Initial Impact of Proposition 227 on the Instructio n of English Learners. Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Available on the www a t Garcia, E. E. (1995). Educating Mexican American st udents: Past treatments and recent developments in theory, research, policy and practice. In J. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook on research on multicultural education (pp. 372-384). New York: MacMillan. Garcia, E. (1999). Understanding and meeting the challenge of student cultural diversity Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Garcia, E. and Curry-Rodriguez, J. (2000) The educa tion of limited English proficient students in Cali fornia schools: An assessment of the influence of Proposit ion 227 on selected districts and schools. Bilingual Research Journal 24 (1 & 2), 15-35. Garcia, E. & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Issues in systemi c reform for culturally and linguistically diverse students. College Record 96 (3), 418-31. Gersten, R. M. and Woodward, J. (1992) The quest to translate research into classroom practice: Strategies for assisting classroom teachers’ work w ith “at risk” students and students with disabiliti es. In D. Carnine and E. Kameenui (eds) Higher Cognitive Functioning for all Students. (pp. 201-218). Austin: Pro-Ed. Glasser, B.G. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qu alitative research Chicago: Aldine. Gutirrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Asato, J. (20 00). “English for the children”: The new literacy o f the old world order, language policy and educational re form. The Bilingual Research Journal, 24 (1 & 2), 87-105. Heller, M. (1994). Crosswords: Language education and ethnicity in Fre nch Ontario. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Jimenez, R., & Gersten, R. (1999). Lessons and dile mmas derived from the literacy instruction of two Latina/o Teachers. American Educational Research Journal 36 (2), 265-301. Kennedy, M. (1991). An agenda for research on teacher learning East Lancing : Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Kerper-Mora, J. (2000). Policy shifts in language-m inority education: A misma between politics and pedagogy. The Educational Forum, 64 204-214. Lipman, P. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring Albany: SUNY Press. Moll, L.C. (ed) (1994). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olneck, M. R. (1995). Immigrants and education. In J. A. Banks, & C. A. McGee-Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp 310-327). New York: Macmillan. Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant studen ts in our public schools. New York: The New Press. Ramirez, J.D. (1992) Executive summary. Bilingual Research Journal 16 (1& 2), 1-62. Sekhon, N. (1999). A birthright rearticulated: The politics of bilingual education. The New York University Law Review, 74 (5), 1407-1445. Stritikus, T. (2002). Immigrant children and the politics of English-Only : Views from the classroom. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Stritikus, T. (in press). The Interrelationship of Beliefs, Context, and Learning: The Case of a Teach er Reacting to Language Policy. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education Wiese, A.-M. (2001). To meet the needs of the kids, not the program": Te achers constructing policy, program, and practice in a bilingual school (Dissertation ). Berkeley: University of Californi a, Berkeley. Wiese, A. & Garcia, E. (1998). The bilingual educat ion act: Language minority students and equal


28 of 30 educational opportunity. Bilingual Research Journal, 22 (1), 1-18. Wong Fillmore, L. (1992). Against our best interest s: The attempt to sabotage bilingual education. In (Ed.) J. Crawford, Language loyalties: A source book of the official E nglish controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Woods, P. (1994) Adaptation and self-determination in English primary schools. Oxford Review of Education 20(4). About the AuthorsTom StritikusUniversity of WashingtonCollege of Education122 Miller HallBox 353600Seattle WA 98119Email: Dr. Tom Stritikus is Assistant Professor, in the Co llege of Education, University of Washington. He earned his Ph.D. in 2000 from the Un iversity of California, Berkeley. He is a faculty associate of the Center f or Multicultural Education at the University of Washington. His teaching and research focuses on policy and practice issues for culturally and linguistically diverse st udents. Eugene GarciaArizona State UniversityCollege of EducationPO Box 870211Tempe AZ 85287-0211Email: Dr. Eugene Garcia is Vice President for UniversitySchool Partnerships and Dean of the College Of Education at Arizona State Universit y. He received his B.A. from the University of Utah in Psychology and his Ph.D. in H uman Development from the University of Kansas. He has served as a Post-Docto ral Fellow in Human Development at Harvard University and as a National Research Council Fellow. He has been a recipient of a National Kellogg Leadersh ip Fellowship and has received numerous academic and public honors. The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is Editor: Gene V Glass, Arizona State UniversityProduction Assistant: Chris Murrell, Arizona State University General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State Un iversity, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb:


29 of 30 .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin David C. Berliner Arizona State University Greg Camilli Rutgers University Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Gustavo E. Fischman California State Univeristy–LosAngeles Richard Garlikov Birmingham, Alabama Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute ofTechnology Patricia Fey Jarvis Seattle, Washington Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Les McLean University of Toronto Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Los Angeles Michele Moses Arizona State University Gary Orfield Harvard University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri Michael Scriven University of Auckland Lorrie A. Shepard University of Colorado, Boulder Robert E. Stake University of Illinois—UC Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Willinsky University of British ColumbiaEPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de


30 of 30 Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Rollin Kent (Mxico) Universidad Autnoma de Puebla Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil) Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Javier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma Marcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de DanielSchugurensky (Argentina-Canad) OISE/UT, Simon Schwartzman (Brazil) American Institutes forResesarch–Brazil (AIRBrasil) Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain) Universidad de A Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.) University of California, Los EPAA is published by the Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.