Bilingual Border

This article was downloaded by: [24.206.111.
249] On: 30 June 2013, At: 09:08 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Critical Inquiry in Language Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcil20
A Delicate Balance: The Clandestine Work of Bilingual Teachers of Bilingual Children in English-Only Borderlands Classrooms
Kirstin Ruth Bratt & Amy A. Cain
a b a b
Saint Cloud State University
Georgia State University Published online: 06 Jun 2013.
To cite this article: Kirstin Ruth Bratt & Amy A. Cain (2013): A Delicate Balance: The Clandestine Work of Bilingual Teachers of Bilingual Children in English-Only Borderlands Classrooms, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10:2, 150-184 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2013.788380
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions 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. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013
Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(2):150184, 2013 Copyright q Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1542-7587 print/1542-7595 online DOI: 10.1080/15427587.2013.788380
A DELICATE BALANCE: THE CLANDESTINE WORK OF BILINGUAL TEACHERS OF BILINGUAL CHILDREN IN ENGLISH-ONLY BORDERLANDS CLASSROOMS
KIRSTIN RUTH BRATT Saint Cloud State University AMY A. CAIN
Georgia State University This qualitative, phenomenological study is based on a set of interviews at the Mexico-U.S. border where legislation restricts teachers use of students home languages in schools. These interviews, after open-coding analysis, demonstrate that teachers exercise their professional judgment in spite of mandates to the contrary, forcing a choice between their professional well-being and the childrens linguistic needs. State laws and district policies necessitate that teachers seek back-door methods to promote bilingualism for Spanish-speaking students. The teachers participating in this study explain that they have to conceal their efforts to promote biliteracy among Spanish-speaking students. This decision is not without consequence, however, as teachers report a great deal of anxiety and selfcensorship inherent in the delicate balance between teaching well and following the laws and policies that they see as antithetical to their best practice.
The theoretical framework for this study is culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b; Sleeter, 2005) and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978). Ladson-Billings (1995b) espouses teachers use of students culture and language as a vehicle for learning. She afrms teachers encouraging students to use their home language while acquiring the secondary discourse (p. 161). Sleeter advocates building curriculum and pedagogy on the cultural frames of reference and linguistic strengths of students from historically oppressed communities as a way to improve student learning (p. 14). The foundation for the study is sociocultural because education occurs through relationshipsinteraction between students and teachers,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kirstin Ruth Bratt, Saint Cloud State University, 720 4th Ave S, St Cloud, MN 56301. E-mail: krbratt@gmail.com
150
Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers
151
between students and other students, and between students and the learning environment. Meaningful dialoguescaffolding by a More Knowledgeable Other (Vygotsky)and authentic interactions are essential in classroom learning experiences. FennemaBloom (2009) uses the term code-scaffolding to refer to teachers use of students rst language (L1) to support students learning in their second language (L2). As states such as Georgia (2011) and Alabama (2012) have passed anti-immigration laws, one wonders about the impact and implications of English-only legislation in states such as Arizona (2000), California (1998), and Massachusetts (2002). A characteristic of an exemplary study according to Yin (2009) is one that has signicance, with underlying issues that are nationally important in policy or practical terms (p. 185). This study is signicant from several perspectives. It sheds light on the complexity of the issue for teachers, students and their families, administrators, and school districts. With the growing pressure for ever-increasing scores on high stakes standardized tests, teachers strive to balance students mastery of content standards and childrens linguistic, emotional, and social development (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Although the Arizona law does allow use of students rst language (Spanish) for clarication, in essence the schools are English only. An Englishonly mentality reects a binary or polarity, not a continuum, such as the continua of biliteracy posited by Hornberger (1989; Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester, 2000). The attitude or mindset reected in the anti-immigration legislation and English-only interpretation and implementation demonstrates the banking analogy posited by Freire (1970). In contrast, the authors perceive language as a resource. Children are not blank slates with teachers depositing the content that students need to learn.
Literature Review In recent years and in almost every region of the country, teachers have been working with increasingly diverse populations of students, many of these students with home languages other than English (Fry & Lopez, 2012; Migration Policy Institute, 2012; Miller-Whitehead, 2001; Simmons, 2008). Fortunately for many of
152
K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain
these children, our workforce in education is replete with bilingual teachers who dedicate their energy to creative problem solving, to caring for every child equitably and thoughtfully, to challenging and engaging children with important ideas, and to encouraging them to grow toward responsible citizenship (Munro, 1996). The United States has witnessed a great deal of prejudice directed toward people whose home language is not English (Tse, 2001), even as education research points to the need to maintain and support home languages so that children can move forward in the second language (Cummins, 2006; de la Luz Reyes & Halco n, 2001; Gonza lez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Karabenick, 2004). In Arizona, where bilingual programs have been dismantled in recent years, bilingual teachers of bilingual students are constrained to teach in English only, even though observations of effective practice continue to conrm recent education research ndings: that a respect for the childs home language is necessary, and that successful teachers are adept at nding unique and innovative ways to bridge the gaps for children as they move between home and school languages (Butler & Gutierrez, 2003; Dong, 2004; Jime nez, 2005; Meltzer & Hamann, 2004; Sarroub, 2007). According to previous studies in multilingual school contexts, many teachers lack preparation or training for their work in linguistically diverse classrooms (Coggins, Krayin, Coates, & Carroll, 2007; Hardin, Roach-Scott, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2007; House Committee on Education and Labor, 2007; Karathanos, 2009; Lee et al., 2008; Sarroub, 2007; Wainer, 2004). Training for teachers has not kept pace with the increasing numbers of English language learners (Dong, 2004; Hardin et al.; Meltzer & Hamann, 2004). Children whose native language is not English have been disproportionately placed in special education classrooms (Hardin et al., 2007; Macswan, 2006), and the No Child Left Behind policies have not addressed the needs of English language learners (House Committee on Education and Labor, 2007). Many English language learners have been retained inappropriately in lower grade levels (Abedi, 2004; Simmons, 2008); special educators report that they lack training for their work with English language learners and that they are not able to serve the
153
needs of English language learners due to lack of resources, lack of administrative support, and communication barriers with parents (Mueller, 2006). Unfortunately, local, state, and national policies may be punitive toward teachers and students rather than supporting their work. In Mexico-U.S. borderlands regions such as Arizona and in other states like California (1998) and Massachusetts (2002), English-only voter mandates create constraints against effective teaching practices (Black, 2006; Lopez, 2006; Mahoney, 2005; Stritikus & Garcia, 2005). In 2002, Arizona voters decided to end bilingual education in schools, and schools have dealt with this voter initiative in different ways ever since. Just before the vote, Kotterman and Lentz (2002), leaders of the Arizona Educators Association, publicly argued against the 2002 initiative, explaining that learning in the native language is essential to the mastery of both academic content and English uency, that the denial of the native language relegates children to a second tier of achievement, that parents rather than state government should be making decisions about the childs language of instruction, and that it is unfair to threaten state employees with jail for exercising their professional judgment. In spite of many protests from Arizonas educators, parents, and students, the proposition passed; restrictions on English were implemented throughout Arizona with many districts, including the district in which these interviews were conducted, often interpreting the law even more strictly than necessary in an effort to stave off any potential criticisms or difculties. Voter mandates that require English-only schooling result from linguistic discrimination, and they exacerbate linguistic discrimination in schools. Linguistic discrimination in public schools is the law in California and Massachusetts as well as Arizona; and of these states, Arizonas linguistic discrimination is the most airtight, closing every loophole for English language learners and children who would most benet from dual language instruction. Arizonas voter propositions prohibit bilingual education, limiting formal support to one year of sheltered immersion (Arias & Faltis, 2012; Krashen, 2005). Ironically, Arizona schools with dual language programs are located in afuent, urban areas rather than rural or borderland
154
areas where they are more desperately needed. Bilingual and dual-language education in Arizona is reserved for the elite and the privileged; indeed, children who wish to study in bilingual programs in Arizona must rst prove, by passing three consecutive years of English exams, that they are fully uent in English. Therefore, the children who could most benet from bilingual instruction are marginalized in English-only classrooms where they often cannot understand basic instructions. Even though many of them have bilingual teachers who could bridge the gap for them, these bilingual teachers, under threat of dismissal, are not allowed to assist the children in basic communication (Kotterman & Lentz, 2002; Krashen, 2005). Various factors contribute to problems in Arizona schools. Nationwide, Solo rzano and Yosso (2000) write that Chicana and Chicano children attend schools whose educational conditions are some of the most inadequate in the United States (p. 37). The situation can be worse in a border community, where predominantly English-speaking students are allowed to develop an unhealthy superiority over Spanish-speaking or bilingual students. Borderlands schools, when English-only policies are in place, are easier for English-procient students because they understand the cultural and linguistic environment and are able to acclimate more easily to the classroom environment. Those who speak English at home, then, gain an unfair advantage over the other children. As McIntosh (1990) writes, the white students are given the benet of the doubt, while the nonwhite students must counter negative stereotypes designed to limit their success. In a press release from The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at the University of California of Los Angeles, Wyer (2012) explains that the propositions of California, Arizona, and Massachusetts have failed:
Its been 12 years since the passage of Proposition 227 in California, which severely restricted bilingual instruction in the states public schools, 10 years in Arizona, and 8 in Massachusetts, where similar initiatives were passed. This is now enough time to judge these policies on their merits, with longitudinal data on students who have been the recipients of the instruction they legislated. The jury is now in and the verdict is that these policies have failed to deliver on their promise.
155
In the press release, Wyer refers to work by Ga ndara and Rumberger in 2009, who explain that language use is highly politicized and that publicly funded research often asks the wrong questions while avoiding relevant ones:
Millions of dollars have been spent and great amounts of political capital squandered on attempting to determine which program is most effective bilingual education or English-only instruction without bothering to ask for whom, under what conditions, or with what goals in mind. When asked in this format, the answers are necessarily complex and multidimensional . . . To what extent and in what form newcomer programs can best serve the needs of immigrant students has not been well studied.
As for our own contribution to the research needs identied by Ga ndara and Rumberger, our study, conducted in the borderlands with bilingual teachers of bilingual children, examines the issues teachers and students face in restrictive linguistic environments, requiring sheltered English immersion for newcomers and ignoring research that demonstrates the utility and promise of bilingual instruction.
Methods Interview Participants and Context These phenomenological interviews were conducted by the rst author near the Mexico-U.S. border with bilingual teachers of bilingual students addressing issues about the teaching and learning context in English-only schools. Phenomenological research is particularly suited to this study because it takes place in a highly charged political context that puts teachers in a difcult position between commitment to their goals as teachers and adherence to state laws and district policies. This situation can be highly charged emotionally, and such a situation is, as Merriam (2009) explains, well-suited to the phenomenological approach: A phenomenological approach is well suited to studying affective, emotional, and often intense human experiences (p. 26). The goal of a phenomenological study, as Cresswell writes, is a composite description that presents the essence of the
156
phenomenon, called the essential, invariant structure (or essence) (Merriam, 2009, p. 62). Of particular interest in the interviews is an exploration of the ways in which students and teachers have been affected by the passage of recent voter initiatives in Arizonainitiatives that have effectively eliminated bilingual education and that jeopardize teachers jobs for using Spanish in schools (Kotterman & Lentz, 2002; Krashen, 2005). The method of seeking interview participants was purposeful sampling, and this method is wellsuited to the phenomenological approach. This sort of sampling, as Patton (2002) argues, does not rely on the power of randomness but rather on the power of depth and richness of information that can be gained by seeking a particular participant who will have a great deal of information to offer the study. Patton writes that purposeful sampling is based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned (p. 230). Purposeful sampling differs from random sampling based on selection; but in a study that aims to understand how a particular type of teacher negotiates a particular context, it is important to nd the people who can share meaningful and relevant information. The participants needed to be bilingual members of the local community, self-identifying as engaged in their work, and willing to talk to an outsider about the effects of local and state policies on their professional practice. To nd such people, the interviewer approached people she had known well for many years and spent about an hour in conversation with each of them, describing the type of teacher she was seeking. Merriam (2009) describes this method of selection in the following way: Snowball, chain, or network sampling is perhaps the most common form of purposeful sampling (p. 79). According to Merriam, this sort of sampling includes locating a few key participants who meet the established criteria and then asking these participants to refer other similar participants to be interviewed. This method worked quite well for this survey because the community of teachers in the area often work closely together through district-wide or area-wide initiatives and workshops and therefore are aware of their colleagues across the district.
157
When the rst author described to her recommenders the ideal participants for these interviews, she emphasized that she was looking for thoughtful and engaged teachers who demonstrate ongoing reection on students needs and best practices. The interviewer drew upon the denition of exemplary teachers postulated by Allington and Johnston (2002). She explained to her recommenders that she was looking for teachers who engage students, help them develop as thoughtful readers and writers, and bolster self-directed learning and literate conversation (Allington & Johnston). One of her recommenders was a white, female, retired teacher who had worked closely with the two teachers whom she recommended to the interviewer. Her recommendation was unequivocal, stating that the teachers were exible, engaged, and committed to their students. These teachers fullled all of the criteria described. The second person the interviewer approached was a leader in the local community: a bilingual, MexicanAmerican man who had worked with government leaders and educational leaders in several professional capacities, including as an aide to an elected ofcial, a director of an educational institution, and a school board member. The interviewer knew that his primary agenda as a leader in the community was to be a vociferous advocate of bilingual education for bilingual students. Again, she described the research and her goal of nding teachers who would serve as participants. He recommended three teachers, each of whom was willing to participate. Finally, the researcher approached the director of English language learning, a white female who is uent in Spanish and is an advocate of bilingual education at the school district; again, the rst author spent a great deal of time describing the research and her desire to nd interested participants. This woman also recommended three teachers, each of whom was willing to participate. The participating teachers all work in the same school district, close to the Mexico-U.S. border. Their years of experience ranged from 3 to 30 years with the district. This school district reports that of its total student population, 71% is composed of English language learners (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008). None of these teachers was compensated nancially for participation in the one- to two-hour interviews.
158
Bracketing Research that includes phenomenological interviewing generally follows a tradition of bracketing that dates back to the earliest phenomenological studies of the philosopher Husserl and have been fully articulated for social science research more recently (Seidman, 1998; Van Manen, 1990). Bracketing is an attempt to individuate and examine the many factors involved in the interview process, including most especially the background perspectives and world-view of the interviewer. Merriam (2009) describes the process of bracketing in this way:
Prior beliefs about a phenomenon of interest are temporarily put aside, or bracketed, so as not to interfere with seeing or intuiting the elements or structure of the phenomenon. When belief is temporarily suspended, consciousness itself becomes heightened and can be examined in the same way that an object of consciousness can be examined . . . To get at the essence or basic underlying structure of the meaning of an experience, the phenomenological interview is the primary method of data collection. Prior to interviewing those who have had direct experience with the phenomenon, the researcher usually explores his or her own experiences, in part to examine dimensions of the experience and in part to become aware of personal prejudices, viewpoints, and assumptions. These prejudices and assumptions are then bracketed or temporarily set aside so that we can examine consciousness itself. (pp. 25 26)
For the interviewer, part of the bracketing process includes remaining mindful of the limitations that are necessarily part of any insider-outsider dialogue and trying to categorize the interviews on the basis of perceived trust levels. She documents evidence of the trust environment between interviewer and participant and then examines the type and quality of information shared given these various levels of perceived trust. Furthermore, as a white researcher in a Mexican-American context, the interviewer considers the analysis in Kendalls (2006) book Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships Across Race, in which Kendall reminds white researchers of the many obstacles that are inherent in crosscultural dialogue. Kendall explains:
It is essential to remember that we enter into interactions about our blind spots with enormous power and privilege imbalances. In a cross-racial
159
conversation between a Latina and a white person, for example, the Latina is at greater risk because she has not been given the systemic privileges that the white person has . . . Being blinded by our privilege often keeps us from being able to see or to hear clearly, especially if the person with whom we are speaking is different from us. (p. 128)
As Kendall explains, suspicion from subjects can often be expected in cross-cultural dialogue. Using bracketing tools allows the researcher to develop strategies for examining and documenting potential blocks to successful communication rather than trying to minimize or deny their existence. Again, the bracketing and examination of trust levels allow for a fuller picture. Kendall (2006) posits:
Expect suspicion from the person to whom you are talking, particularly if your conversation hasnt come up naturally. That concern is heightened exponentially when there is an even greater imbalance of privilege and power . . . I nd that it is often difcult for white people to accept that a person of color would automatically be suspicious of any white person they are talking to . . . Because so many white people see ourselves as individuals and as relatively good people, we have a hard time imagining that we pose a threat to someone we work with or are talking to. (p. 129)
In consonance with Kendalls theories, the interviewer seeks to document how her conversations with bilingual teachers identifying as Mexican, Mexican-American, or Hispanic may be governed by power differentials. As Merriam (2009) explains, researchers must be aware of the power dynamics at the core of any critical research, that is, the negotiation of power and the structures in place to reinforce power distribution, elements that often remain in the unconscious and create an unconditional acceptance of the status quo (p. 35). As a researcher, outsider, and member of the dominant discourse group, the interviewer remains aware that while she attempts to gain a critical distance from it, she is encircled by it and therefore cannot avoid a certain lack of clarity regarding it. As interviewer, this role as outsider creates a barrier between the interviewer and the group of participants. None of this should suggest that the participants are inhospitable in any way; on the contrary, they are gracious, kind, and generous with their time. It is simply true that the ability to conduct interviews and to glimpse the many realities they share is hampered by differences. Rather
160
than ignore these limitations, bracketing allows us to work with them, categorizing the interviews based on perceived levels of trust, and examining the results with that added consideration. Roulston (2007) identies the core belief of phenomenological research to avoid romantic claims of objectivity. Instead, the phenomenological researcher analyzes and reveals subjectivities, and strives to generate the kind of conversation that is intimate and self-revealing (Merriam, 2009, p. 93).
Goals for Bracketing and Researcher Self-awareness

The goal of phenomenological interviewing is to reach multilayered understandings based on participant sharing and researcher interpretation. To this end, the researcher collects information about context, lived experiences, and outsider perceptions in an effort to nd a shared construction of meaning (Van Manen, 1990). Keeping in mind that these layers of experience and perception can be deconstructed and reconstructed, phenomenology also acknowledges that a complete picture remains ever elusive (Seidman, 1998). Merriam (2009) explains the process of phenomenological interview research, saying that interviews focus on the lived meanings that events have and the inuence of those meanings on individuals actions and interactions: It is common practice in phenomenological research for researchers to write about their own experiences of the phenomenon or to be interviewed by a colleague in order to bracket their experiences prior to interviewing others (p. 93). In an effort to deconstruct the interviews most completely and to consider possible meanings most successfully, this project carefully examines trust levels, as they are perceived by the interviewer and as they affect communication between a white researcher and nonwhite participants. Keeping in mind Kendalls writing about power dynamics and ethnicity, the interviewer created a scale of perceived trust for each interview situation. This scale of perceived trust is based primarily on three factors: environment (predetermined or negotiated, public or private, selected by interviewer or by interviewee), interviewer perception of responses (guarded or free, open or closed answers), and origin of interview (referring persons role in relation to the
161
teacher and the interviewer); this will be described in the next few paragraphs. Also see Appendix A for an explanatory chart. The scale of perceived trust (Appendix A) is determined after each interview by the interviewer; in turn, this scale guides the phenomenological analysis of the transcripts. If the environment is negotiated by and ultimately selected by the interviewee and is in a private space, the environment is considered to contribute to the highest trust level. If the environment is predetermined by the interviewer and is a public space, this setting is seen to contribute to the lowest trust level. Furthermore, the person who refers the teacher to the interview might be an employer, a teaching colleague, a community member, or a friend. Perceived trust levels are considered to be highest when the referral comes from a friend, lower from a colleague or community member, and lowest when the referral comes from an employer. Finally, the interviewers perception of trust level is somewhat subjective, but the perception is guided by the types of responses (lengthy vs. brief; closedcomposed of comments that close the conversation vs. opencomposed of comments that extend the conversation into further explorations or questions). The participants for these interviews include three female kindergarten teachers; one male and two female fth grade teachers; and two female eighth grade teachers. All participants are bilingual, and all self-identify as Mexican or MexicanAmerican; each of them speaks a mixture of English and Spanish both at home and within the local community. Their levels of formal literacy instruction in Spanish vary. All participants are lifelong residents of the Mexico-U.S. borderlands, all have some history as English language learners in schools themselves, all have resided for a time on both sides of the border, and all continue to have family ties in both countries. The rst two interviews are similar in construction: both are individual interviews with female eighth grade teachers of language arts and social studies; both take place in the participants homes with no one present except the participant and interviewer; and both participants are introduced to the interviewer by a retired teacher from the district. The level of trust between the rst set of participants and the interviewer is rated at a medium level. Some trust might have
162
been gained from the fact that the referring teacher (white, female) had worked closely as a team member with the teachers and had personally introduced these teachers to the interviewer. Further, the home environment for each teacher is perhaps the location most conducive to effective communication. Barriers to trust include, as Kendall explains, the fact that the participants identify as bilingual Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, or Hispanics, and the interviewer for this set, and all other sets of interviews, identies as an Anglo-American with some Spanish prociency but not native uency. The content of these interviews include the teachers life histories, descriptions of the curriculum and work environment at school, and the sharing of strategies and best practices for teaching English language learners in social studies and language arts. The second set of interviews is with three female kindergarten teachers. These teachers identify themselves as bilingual and either Mexican-American or Hispanic. The level of perceived trust in this set of interviews is considered lower, primarily because the teachers are asked to participate by a white, female district administrator who, despite her advocacy of bilingual education, is nevertheless charged with upholding the English-only policies in public schools. Also, this second set of interviews took place in the school library. Although empty of students or teachers, the place still felt like a public place with the potential for interruptions. Finally, a barrier to trust includes the dichotomy of cultural backgrounds between interviewer and participants (Kendall, 2006). Yet despite the conditions for the interviews, these participants offer a number of insights about the history of bilingual education in the district. Two of them had been teaching during the 1970s when bilingual education had been the norm, and they report very positive experiences with that model. They are also open about sharing their own personal histories with language learning, their preferences about different basal reading programs, their communication with parents, and the history of district policy regarding English language learning. These interviews are useful in terms of gathering information about the public face of teachers and their concerns about how to best respond to the needs of children within the limits of state laws and district policies.
163
The third set of interviewees might be considered the most trusting group of teachers. These three fth grade teachers, one male and two female, all self-identifying as Mexican-American and bilingual, had been introduced to the interviewer by a MexicanAmerican school board member whose political activism is based on respect for teachers and is well known in the area. Each of these teachers had received mentoring from a retired teacher who had been a strong, vocal, local advocate of bilingual education throughout his career. He had since moved away from the community. Furthermore, one of the teachers had been a community college student of the interviewer ten years prior to this interview and had reported a positive experience in the interviewers classes. This teacher had invited the interviewer to observe her classroom during the afternoon before the group interview. She is the only teacher previously known to the interviewer, and her attendance in the group interview is a valuable asset for the interviewer in establishing a base of trust for the interview. Throughout this third set of interviews, the participant best known to the interviewer encourages her colleagues to trust in the interview process. When a question elicits an opinion, she often begins the discussion, thus clearing the path for the other two teachers. Sometimes she nods her encouragement or poses follow-up questions to the other interviewees. While the same cultural barrier exists between participants and interviewer, this one participant takes on an extra role that of proxy interviewer. With her assistance, then, the interviews become quite revealing, as the three teachers give increasingly detailed responses. Just as in the other two sets of interviews, the teachers share life histories, information about curriculum and the school environment, and strategies that would be considered best practices for teaching English language learners. See Appendix A.
Interview Questions We cannot begin to discuss the interviews without rst addressing the fundamental tension around language use in Arizona schools. While a certain question, such as Do you think some of the children in your class understand math concepts better in English
164
or Spanish? may seem innocuous to anyone outside of this context, any question regarding bilingualism in Arizona takes on layers of fear, guilt, and danger when addressing teachers. Perhaps it is reasonable to suggest that such a question is especially dangerous when posed to a Spanish-speaking bilingual teacher because this teacher is viewed as more likely to use Spanish in the classroom. As professionals working for the government, teachers are expected to follow the laws of the state and federal governments and the policies of the district. However, what should they do when they see these laws and policies in conict with one another? Federal law protects their free speech and their right to educate all children regardless of immigrant status, and yet the state laws and district policies seem to indicate otherwise. Hence our concern with questions of trust and reliability in the interview process; hence our need to take a phenomenological approach to this study so that we are able to examine a multi-layered set of issues and concerns in the public education of Arizonas children. Each participant interview has as its goal the understanding of the lived experience of the participant as she or he teaches a linguistically diverse group of elementary or middle school students. As a phenomenological study, the historical, cultural, familial, intellectual, ethical, and emotional factors are all seen to have a bearing on this work and become part of the interviewing and bracketing processes. Because Arizona law is so punitive toward teachers (Kotterman & Lentz, 2002), many districts have created additional policies to prevent any entanglements with the voter propositions. Knowing this and understanding the inherent tensions created by these policies creates an even greater urgency to study the situations of these teachers in depth, but it also carries a great risk for the teachers and causes a number of difculties in the interview process. The political climate in which these teachers work is so restrictive as to cause negative consequences for teachers who express any opinions about language diversity and discrimination that contradicts district policy or state law. In some districts in Arizona, school personnel who are caught speaking in languages other than English are transferred or dismissed. Armour (2010), writing for ESL Focus, explains that the Arizona Department of Education sends state auditors to
165
individual classrooms around the state to monitor the English skills of teachers, assuring that the teachers meet standards of pronunciation, grammar, and writing prociency in English. Those teachers who are found decient in English are then required to attend remedial English courses. After these courses, if they are still found lacking, they are red or reassigned to other duties. Considering all of the restrictions and limitations placed on Arizonas teachers, the interview questions for this study are designed to elicit responses about how bilingual teachers function in a prohibitive environment and how bilingual teachers respond to the laws and policies. However, such questions, necessarily, create anxiety on the part of the researchers, the teachers, and the publishers who wish to protect the teachers without silencing their concerns. Interview questions center on the work that teachers do with bilingual (Spanish-English) or monolingual (Spanish only) students and ways teachers respond to district policies that forbid school personnel from speaking in any language other than English with students at the school The questions for the interviews are open-ended, leaving room for the participants to share stories regarding literacy teaching in a multilingual context. Framing questions for each interview include the following: How do teachers who were once English language learners support English language learning students in a district that mandates English-only teaching? (Sample questions: How do you support your English language learning students when they are struggling? How likely are you to use Spanish in your classroom? How many times each day do you nd yourself using a Spanish word or phrase? Do you think that your principal would approve or disapprove of your using Spanish in the classroom? If and when you avoid using Spanish, what other things do you do to support your students?). Furthermore, how do these teachers talk about the constraints of English-only policies in their classrooms? How do they create effective practice, and how does effective practice either work with or against voter mandates? (Sample questions: Are you allowed to use Spanish in your classroom? If not, do you feel limited in your ability to communicate with students? If so, are you careful about how and when you use Spanish? Do you ever use Spanish? If you dont use Spanish, how do you communicate difcult concepts, and can you give examples?)
166
Discussion On Teaching the Concepts, the Need for Home Language Just before the interview with the fth grade teachers, one of the participants invites the interviewer to visit her classroom. The interviewer is struck then by how intuitive the fth grade teacher seems to be when working with the children. Tsui (2003) considers expertise of second language teachers in terms of a teachers intuition and tacit knowledge (p. 10). Sometimes this teacher approaches a child who has not indicated a need for help and offers a few words in Spanish to explain or clarify the instructions. When the interviewer asks about this action during the interview, the teacher explains that she has nonverbal ways of communicating with the children. She describes a sense of knowing when a child needs a translation into Spanish by a subtle expression on the childs face. The interviewer and the fth grade teacher discuss this form of knowing with her fth grade colleagues. They all say that they have a sense of when a child needs a few words in Spanish. They state that the district policy of denying the translation to the child is cruel; nevertheless, they are afraid to provide the translation because of the policy. One teacher says, Am I nervous? Am I scared? Yes! Does that stop me? No. The teachers say that the district allows them to use children as translators, but that the children are not always reliable because they have both conceptual and linguistic limitations to their ability to translate technical concepts. One fth-grade teacher describes a child translator who had tried to help her classmate: It broke my heart because she looked so helpless, but she knew I couldnt say anything. She describes the child looking helplessly toward the teacher, knowing that the teacher is restricted by district policy, derived and interpreted from state law, from helping, and she regrets the childs burden of responsibility for the classmates success. The teacher describes this type of occurrence as frequent, uncomfortable, and unfair. An eighth grade teacher comments, I could say that one word in Spanish that would spark a light bulb, but Im afraid to do that now. Most of the teachers express the belief that they need to rely on some use of Spanish with many of their students when they
167
need to assess a childs degree of conceptual understanding or to challenge a child appropriately in conceptual learning. One teacher explains that her eighth grade language arts students are . . . bored, because they dont get it. They get frustrated as well. And I know most of my Spanish-speaking students are failing language arts right now. The teachers of eighth graders say their hands are tied, as they are unable to teach effectively without the home language. One eighth-grade teacher says that she uses Spanish occasionally to make the topics more challenging. She says: I tend to water things down if I try to modify them for my non-English speakers. I want them to do grade-level stuff in their native language as opposed to English, where I water it down. This same teacher sometimes asks the children to translate their work into Spanish so that she can assess their conceptual understanding. Furthermore, the three fth grade teachers explain that the rules against Spanish or other languages do not affect only language arts and language learning. The teachers explain that concepts in math, social studies, and science require a robust understanding of the language of instruction. For example, mathematics may rely on a universal system of codes, but it still requires that teacher and student communicate through a common linguistic system. An eighth grade teacher expresses her frustration when she cannot communicate clearly with the children. When asked whether she ever uses Spanish to clarify a concept, she said, Yes. Yes, yes, yes. When Im teaching to the whole group, no; but if its an individual, one-on-one, yes. Because it works, I mean, they need to know what Im trying to say, and I can make sure they understand.
Wasted Opportunities: The Untapped Potential of the Bilingual Teacher One fth-grade teacher, the only male participant in this study, describes the importance of community membership and the resources that he, as a community member, brings to his work. He identies strongly with his students, as he was raised in the community. He says that he was never a top student but that he learned a work ethic that he tries to transmit to his students. He says, I would listen; I would work hard. Not necessarily that
168
I was the smartest, but I think I worked really hard. That, I bring to my classroom. He says that he has to nd ways of teaching concepts that go beyond what the textbooks offer: If I want to teach something, I have to decide how. If I just go by the book, theres no way. How can I make it approachable to all my class? You have an awareness of their language, their culture, being sensitive to that kind of thing. Also, he emphasizes the fact that his community membership augments his work as a teacher, stating, The kids see you like a cousin, like a neighbor, like an uncle. A lot of the success that I have experienced goes with that. He says that he felt as a student, and still feels as a teacher, that the school district does not value or respect the home languages of the children. As a result of his own difculties with language learning as a child, he says that he still feels unintelligent at times, citing faculty meetings as especially painful. Because he can identify so strongly with his students, his goal as a teacher is to provide opportunities for children to experience success, yet he feels that he must rely on the native language to create these moments for children. He says, once they experience success, he can say, See, you can do it in Spanish, so its a matter of time before you can do it in English. Yet the teachers say that the school and state policies denigrate Spanish. While all of the participants in these interviews are long-term residents of the area, some had been educated at universities in other cities. These teachers realize that bilingualism is valued in other parts of the country. One fth-grade teacher says, My friends from back east are impressed with my ability to speak Spanish, but here its degraded. Two of the kindergarten teachers who participate in the interviews reminisce about the bilingual programs of the 1970s, when they were just beginning their careers as teachers. One explains that Spanish-speaking parents were skeptical about such programs, stating,
But you did have that mentality of parents who didnt want it because they were afraid students wouldnt learn English, so they saw it as a step back. I remember most of the parents were Anglo. They saw the benets of being bilingual. But the other parents, they worked in the elds, and they wanted their children to learn English. Spanish was taught at home; they saw Spanish as their job.
169
The teachers say that many Spanish-speaking parents support the English-only law because they see the school system as the only place where their children might gain access to future economic opportunities. While many in the community, including many Spanish-speaking parents, support the policies of English-only in school, the entire community outside of the school functions completely in Spanish, including city council and school board meetings, businesses, and private homes. The school is, in fact, the only English-speaking location in the community. As one of the kindergarten teachers explains,
If you go outside, you wont hear anyone speak English. You go to the banks, they dont speak English. You go to city hall, they dont speak English. They dont speak English. They come to our school, and its English, but they go out to the community and its Spanish.
In terms of the social atmosphere of the classroom, the teachers describe a range of attitudes that children hold toward their Spanish-speaking classmates. If the Spanish-speaking child is a recent immigrant, the classmates applaud and celebrate the immigrants new English words. Yet the more time that the Spanish-speaking child has resided in the area, the more likely it becomes that the bilingual classmates will degrade the child for his or her accent, limited English vocabulary, and mixed grammar. One of the eighth grade teachers had worked in low-paying, low-status jobs before applying to become an emergency-certied teacher in her late thirties. The state of Arizona allows an emergency substitute certicate in a district that veries an emergency employment situation and in the temporary absence of a regular contract teacher. These emergency certicates require an associate degree. The teacher explains that her ability to become certied has been hampered by her poverty, her low self-condence, and her familys history as undocumented immigrant workers. Also, because this teacher is not fully certied, her salary is much lower than her counterparts, even though her work requirements are the same. Furthermore, she explains that emergency-certied teachers, like her, are assigned to the classes that are composed of the students who are marked by the school as the lowest achieving group. She says
170
that she feels that this system is designed to perpetuate failure, but that such a design also motivates her to face the obstacles and dedicate herself even more fully to the success of the students. This teacher immigrated to the United States when she was 14. Her father had been working to organize unions in Mexico, and he was starting to feel pressure from the government. She says, People wanted a change, but the PRI would come down pretty hard. My dad was involved there. I was just scared to lose my dad because it did create some problems. They were really, really aggressive; and they didnt want to give up the power. She explains that her family began a week-long migration to the United States:
I came over here across the border. I came with my aunt and stayed at my aunts house. Then my mom crossed on the following Sunday. A few hours later my brother crossed. We all came through the gates. We didnt cross through the desert or anything like that. No papers. They didnt even ask for that. We were lucky because they didnt even ask for that. I cant remember anything bad happening.
After her arrival in the United States, several years passed before she felt comfortable using English. Recalling her early days in the United States in high school, she said,
The teacher was mean to us not sarcastic but teasing. But I started working and seeing that I could do a lot of things in school. I was passing my classes with As and Bs. I was not actually lost there; I was actually learning.
Because her parents did not understand the school system, she said she was not encouraged to seek a higher education degree; rather, she began to work in the elds with her family during vacations and after high school. Her family was not aware of scholarship opportunities for her postsecondary education. She said, You see, my language intimidated me, so I wasted those years. I wish I could go back and recuperate. Back then I could have gotten a scholarship, but now I have to pay for my education. While this teachers previous experiences might serve as a resource for the children of the district, restrictions on the use of Spanish make it unlikely that this teacher will explore her
171
full potential to bridge the home-school connection for immigrant children and their families. Not only this teacher, but all of the participating teachers express the idea that their membership in the local community makes an enormous difference in their effectiveness. Several indicate that the bilingual teachers are more likely to live in the community, while white, English-speaking teachers are more likely to commute from a larger city to the north. These teachers believe that living in the local community creates a closeness with the school children. One teacher talks about her conversations with children in the neighborhood; another says that the children see him as a family member, giving him a base of trust from which to work. Another speaks of passing a crowded baseball eld at nine oclock in the evening and realizing that many of the children will not have nished their homework for the next day. Unfortunately, however, all of the bilingual teachers say that their ability to connect with the community is not valued at the district level. On the contrary, they feel they are constantly under surveillance because they are seen as more likely to violate the English-only policy. Indeed, the teachers in this district are monitored carefully by principals and outside evaluators; the district employs several observers whose job it is to travel from classroom to classroom, entering unannounced to collect data on the teachers compliance with the English-only law and to assist with strategies for delivering instruction in English more effectively. One teacher says that these outside evaluators measure success based on how students are expected to perform on standardized tests. One teacher laments,
Since Proposition 203, your most effective teaching is cut off by the law. If you go strictly by what the state permits and what they expect of the childs growth, its unrealistic. Its really hard for me. The law is tying your hands; all of a sudden you cant do your work any more. The community in the classroom is gone, and the childrens respect for the teachers and each other also. You dont have that home-school connection.
The loss of the home-school connection is noteworthy; likewise, these teachers cite the increasing prominence of standardized tests and external evaluators as a barrier to their effectiveness. Standardized tests and external evaluators disappoint teachers who can see a great deal of progress even though the tests and
172
evaluations may mark the children as failures. One teacher says, There are times when Im thrilled with the progress of my students, even though the outside evaluator may not be. The outside evaluator only sees the deciencies. Another teacher concurs, saying that many teachers are dropping out of the profession because the development and growth of the students is not acknowledged by any external evaluations or assessments. She says,
Im happy that my kids succeed in the state test, or whatever, but my most rewarding experiences are always based on my English language learners because thats where you see the most growth. I dont remember their endof-the-year scores, but I remember when they write their rst paragraphs in English.
Frustrated by standardized tests and evaluations that fail to recognize the success of their students and their own work as teachers, the classroom teachers describe a continuum of selfvalidation. One eighth grade teacher says,
I used to make excuses, but I nally decided I was tired of making these excuses. Ive learned how to be better at teaching English language learners. Its sad because you always want to compete with your colleagues, but my own personal satisfaction is helping a child move from zero words in English to being able to hold a conversation.
Other teachers seem less condent, however. In all three sets of interviews, the participants describe feelings of hopelessness and fears that their work is not effective. They often express the need for the home language in the classroom and its importance when children are learning a target language.
Clandestine Teaching: the Teacher as Conscientious Objector While each participant starts the interview process with fairly cautious answers, most participants eventually share their more clandestine strategies and their methods of resistance to what they consider overly restrictive policies. One eighth-grade teacher shares that her strategy for circumventing the English-only policy is to give the students a brief Spanish translation but then tell the
173
students that the words are actually Latin, rather than Spanish. She says that she sees this as a legitimate resistance to an unrealistic policy, yet she also regrets these fabrications, feeling that her integrity as a teacher is at stake. The fth grade teachers, toward the end of their interview, decide to show the interviewer their contraband materials. Amazingly, they have retained a clandestine set of Spanish translations of their textbooks from the past, when bilingual education was the norm in the school district. One teacher starts by stating that she gives the books to the children to take home, saying, Here, take it home. You can read it at home, you know. I dont want to see the book here. But a few minutes later, she admits that she lets the children use the books in the classroom also. When she admits to this, it is interesting to note her shift to second-person point-of-view. She says,
But then occasionally, youre giving a test, and you see them struggling, and you are working with another student, and you say, You know what, take out the Spanish book. Would I do it if someone else was in my classroom? No. Its just sad that you have to go through all that and feel scared when you know that what youre doing is the best for that kid.
She goes on to explain that she allows the children to use these textbooks during their independent work time with the understanding that the books must be hidden quickly if the classroom door opens. These children know the laws and policies, and they know that their teachers can be red for using these books. Their loyalty to the teachers, and the teachers reciprocal trust in them, exemplies the passion for learning and teaching that guides these teachers, even as laws and policies fail to support their efforts. However, while fth grade teachers say that their students try their best to comply and use English when the teachers ask them to do so, middle school teachers report an opposite experience. The eighth grade bilingual teachers state that, even though the students understand the district policies against Spanish, or perhaps because they do understand and oppose these policies, they consistently approach their teachers in Spanish and typically initiate all conversations with school personnel in Spanish. These interactions serve to amplify the teachers uncomfortable position as both child advocate and public employee.
174
One eighth-grade teacher becomes visibly uncomfortable when describing the experience of being approached in Spanisha discomfort that becomes clear during her equivocal description. She says,
Does Spanish help me teach better? Because Im in the community, probably, I should say yes. They know you speak Spanish, and they start talking to you in Spanish. They dont think about it; they just do it. I use my, I dont speak Spanish. Oh you do speak Spanish. Not during class.
Not only does she shift her answer between saying that she does or does not speak Spanish with the children, but she also shifts her pronouns from rst person to second person in the middle of her answer. The shift in pronoun serves to distance her from the act she describes. The uncertain stance and discomfort illustrate clearly the difcult situation that the teacher is placed in when the law and school policies contradict her professional opinion and knowledge of best practices. The Necessity for Action In the sense that public schools must prepare all children for political and economic opportunity, Arizonas English-only laws are touted by proponents as humane and anti-discriminatory, and yet, the evidence we have discovered in the course of this research points to an opposite conclusion. To achieve success in their classrooms, the participating teachers have had to implement back-door methods that circumvent the English-only law. In the process of doing what they know is right for their students, the teachers have suffered anxiety and self-censorship. In other words, the law, touted as humane, instead causes undue suffering to teachers and their students. Clark, writing for Educational Leadership, explains the view of the proponents of Structured English Immersion (SEI), who believe that students can, in contrast to what many theories suggest, learn English very quickly and that immersion is the most useful method. Furthermore, according to SEI proponents, student self-esteem is enhanced by learning the fundamentals of English (Clark, 2009). In line with such reasoning many
175
Spanish-speaking parents in the borderlands, according to the teachers, prefer that schools teach English, insisting that Spanish can be taught in the home. Certainly, public discourse and educational research are not always in consonance. Combs (2012) explains the false manner in which English-only policies are often introduced in public discourse by their advocates; she writes of folk theories that are used to make English-only policies seem logical. These folk theories include that young children learn English better than older students; that immersion in an allEnglish setting would help students acquire the language more rapidly; and that such an approach would teach them enough English in one year to be academically successful in the mainstream classroom (Combs, p. 63). The Arizona Department of Education relies on these unproven theories in department policy documents, reports, press releases, and professional development session (Combs, p. 63). In counter to these English-only arguments, many researchers and theorists emphasize that bilingualism should be seen as a benet and a resource for children and their communities (Cummins, 2006; Gonza lez et al., 2005; Sleeter, 2005; Valenzuela, 1999). Skutnabb-Kangas (1995) writes that high levels of bilingualism/biculturalism benet every child, but for minority children, bilingualism is a necessity (p. 55). Delpit (1988) agrees, saying each cultural group should have the right to maintain its own language style (p. 280). Perea (2001) asks teachers to become activists for linguistic and cultural diversity, writing that educators who care about linguistic and cultural diversity must educate the public about why languages other than English matter, and why it is foolish to squelch, rather than nurture, the linguistic resources extant in the various heritages of Americans (p. 137). Indeed, Pease-Alvarez and Samway (2008) explain in their study of teachers in California that, even though teachers are often hesitant to be vocal advocates for themselves, they can often be counted on to make professional decisions based on their experience and knowledge and that teachers may subtly employ productive strategies for the benet of their students, even if these strategies contradict district curriculum mandates. In her exploration of the English-only debate, SkutnabbKangas explains that parents are ultimately practical in their desires for their children, and that their desire for an English-only
176
education for their children does not indicate a desire for the loss of mother tongue so much as it indicates the parents acknowledgment of their limitations and their willingness to make painful and debilitating sacrices for their economic survival. Responding in a practical manner to a lack of options, therefore, must not be interpreted as compliance with discrimination (SkutnabbKangas, 1995, 2002). While respect for the mother tongue is crucial, respect for home and community dynamics are also known to be fundamental to a childs linguistic development. Research conducted at the University of Arizona conrms what our participants claim about the importance of their own close ties to the community (Gonza lez et al., 2005). The teachers in our interviews discuss the importance of knowing about baseball games, the neighborhoods, and the home lives of the children. This concept, described as funds of knowledge, is important when considering the learning needs of children and the need for a home-school connection. When teachers visit a wide variety of households, the homes and communities can be viewed in terms of the strengths and resources that families possess (Gonza lez et al.). Additionally, children typically become more oppositional toward adults at school as they grow from childhood to adolescence (Brown & Leaman, 2007). Thus, while bilingual teachers of fth graders can trust their students to cooperate with clandestine teaching and learning strategies, the natural growth into adolescence causes a precarious situation for the corresponding eighth grade teachers. Because the fth grade teachers trust their students with contraband materials, these teachers nd they are able to bridge the gap between home language and school language, even if such bridging is illegal. They feel that the children are on their side and are willing to cooperate in the classroom resistance of teacher and student against English-only policies. However, as the children become older, as in the case of the eighth graders, their emerging oppositional identity precludes them from cooperating with the teachers; and their resistance becomes directed toward the teachers. Clearly, these English-only policies are untenable at any grade level, and the danger that the teachers face by exercising their professional judgment makes it urgent that these punitive policies be changed.
177
The participants of this study in the Mexico-U.S. border region express that the teachers respect for the home language is a critical aspect of students learning a target language. The reality of teachers work with children demonstrates, on a quotidian basis, the real tragedy of short-sighted voter propositions placing restrictions on the work of teachers. Teachers state quite clearly that they are restrained from exercising their best judgment in an environment that prohibits the use of home languages. They explain that as bilingual teachers, they have an advantage that cannot be exercised but that could be applied toward the linguistic development of the children if only the restrictive English-only policies could be withdrawn. If there were successful bilingual programs and dual language programs in the past, as these teachers describe, they can and should be allowed to be successful again. Although the work of bilingual teachers is often deprofessionalized and even criminalized when they attempt to bridge the home-school connection for their students, it is critical that the greater community recognize and support their work. Salomone (2012) has noted the seeming tension between developing the EL students bilingual potential and holding state and local educators accountable for student achievement (p. 116). In their work with children, teachers must nd a balance between acting responsibly toward their students and communities while simultaneously managing the many obstacles imposed by a system of linguistic discrimination. To assist teachers, Salomone advocates charting a federal role in affording English learners an effective and meaningful education, which gives adequate weight to accountability while allowing local discretion to meet student needs and family preferences regarding home language retention (p. 116). In the interviews, the participants express an explicit critique of the laws and policies that is reected implicitly in their daily work, even if this critique is not always explicitly expressed to the public. As for the rest of us, as members of the general public, it is incumbent upon us to recognize and support this work so that the teachers can imagine greater possibilities for themselves and the children they serve and perhaps become even stronger and more vocal in their responses to linguistic discrimination. As Giroux (1988) writes, any viable form of schooling needs to be informed by a passion
178
and faith in the necessity of struggling in the interest of creating a better world (p. 9). Most importantly, teachers must be supported in their critical thinking and know that they have public support for their thoughtful work. In Leistynas (1998) case study of one multicultural school, the importance of such teacher agency is noted often. Leistyna writes of the empowerment of teachers to
develop a more profound understanding of students . . . and needs, helping them to actualize a better sense of . . . the sociopolitical inuences that shape their lives in the United States the logic being that when people possess a deeper understanding of themselves and their communities, they are more adequately equipped to bring about positive social change. (p. 5)
Flexible and thoughtful teachers are often experienced and agile at developing individual practices to remedy immediate, specic, and short-term needs of students. Inbar-Lourie (2010) has noted great variability amongst teachers in terms of their L1 practices, stating that these vary by individual and depend on many factors, including context, personality, local policy, student need, lesson contents and objectives, available materials, teacher training and experience, and program goals. Such practices, however, effective as they may be, are rarely replicated or documented because of their spontaneous nature and because teachers so often work in isolation from their colleagues. Flinders (1988) observes that the task demands of teachers isolate teachers from their immediate colleagues, [and] also eliminate opportunities for them to expand their subject-matter knowledge and further develop expertise regarding the content of their instruction (p. 26). This study points to the need to discuss effective practices with bilingual teachers (Barrera & Jime nez, 2000) and to observe their classrooms with an eye toward witnessing, coding, and reporting small-scale best practices of bilingual teachers with bilingual students when the use of the home language is prohibited by public policy. In various ways, the teachers participating in these interviews have conrmed what education research has also foundthat a child becomes procient in a second language by attaining a degree of comfort in the rst language and by sensing that the school and its representatives honor the rst language (Cummins,
179
2006; Dong, 2004; Jime nez, 2005; Karabenick, 2004; Krashen, 1982; Meltzer & Hamann, 2004; Pease-Alvarez & Samway, 2008; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1995, 2002; Tse, 2001). These teacher interviews near the border demonstrate that teachers still exercise their professional judgment in spite of prohibitive mandates and counterproductive policies. Unfortunately, however, rather than use their rich potential to become leaders in bilingual education, these teachers have had to nd back-door methods to educate bilingual or Spanish-speaking students. In many ways, the schools of southern Arizona have had to deny the productive work these teachers are doing in order for teachers to continue it. The delicate balance of teacher professionalism acknowledges public policy and a concern for each child; for this reason, it is crucial that public policy support teacher agency in bilingual classrooms, meaning that bilingual teachers especially be provided with enough support, including professional development, to aid in their judgment about when and how to use home languages to support the linguistic needs of the children in their classrooms.
References
Abedi, J. (2004, April). Validity of accommodation for English language learners. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA. Allington, R., & Johnston, P. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth grade classrooms. New York, NY: Guilford. Arias, M. B. & Faltis, C. (Eds.). (2012). Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in SEI. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Armour, J. (May 30, 2010). Arizona law may impact non-native educators. ESL Focus. Retrieved from http://www.eslfocus.com/articles/arizona_law_ may_impact_non-native_educators-495.html# Barrera, R. B., & Jime nez, R. T. (2000). Literacy instruction for bilingual Latino students: Teachers experiences and knowledge. In Proceedings of a research symposium on high standards in reading for students from diverse language groups: Research, practice & policy (pp. 144 159). Black, W. R. (2006). Constructing accountability performance for English language learner students: An unnished journey toward language minority rights. Educational Policy, 20(1), 197 224. Brown, D. F., & Leaman, H. L. (2007). Recognizing and responding to young adolescents ethnic identity development. In V. A. Anfara & S. B. Mertens
180
(Eds.), The young adolescent and the middle school (pp. 219 235). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Butler, Y. G., & Gutierrez, M. B. (2003). Learning climates for English language learners: A case of fourth grade students in California. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(2), 207. Clark, K. (2009, April). The case for structured English immersion. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 42 46. Coggins, D., Kravin, D., Coates, G. D., & Carroll, M. D. (2007). English language learners in the mathematics classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Combs, M. C. (2012). Everything on its head: How Arizonas structured English immersion policy reinvents theory and practice. In M. B. Arias & C. Faltis (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in SEI (pp. 59 76). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2006). Multiliteracies and equity: How do Canadian schools measure up. Education Canada, 46(2), 4 7. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The at world and education: How Americas commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other peoples children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280 298. Dong, Y. R. (2004). Teaching language and content to linguistically and culturally diverse students: Principles, ideas, and materials. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Fennema-Bloom, J. R. (2009). Code-scaffolding: A pedagogic code-switching technique for bilingual content instruction. Journal of Education, 190(3), 2735. Flinders, D. J. (1988). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(1), 17 29. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Fry, R., & Lopez, M. H. (2012). Hispanic student enrollments reach new highs in 2012. Pew Hispanic Research Center. Retrieved from http://www. pewhispanic.org/2012/08/20/hispanic-student-enrollments-reach-new-hi ghs-in-2011/ Ga ndara, P., & Rumberger, R. W. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does language policy structure opportunity? Teachers College Record, 111(3), 750 782. Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Gonza lez, N., Moll, L. C. & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hardin, B. J., Roach-Scott, M., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (2007). Special education referral, evaluation, and placement practices for preschool English language learners. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(1), 39 54. Hornberger, N. H. (1989). Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 271 296. doi:10.3102/00346543059003271 Hornberger, N. H., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2000). Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International and critical perspectives. Language and Education, 14 (2), 96 122.
181
House Committee on Education and Labor, Congress of the United States. (2007). Impact of No Child Left Behind on English language learners. Hearing before the subcommittee on early childhood elementary and secondary education of the committee on education and labor. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Inbar-Lourie, O. (2010, September). English only? The linguistic choices of teachers of young EFL learners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(3), 351 367. Jime nez, R. T. (2005). Moving beyond the obvious: Examining our thinking about linguistically diverse students. Learning Point Association/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Professional development implications of teachers beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 55 75. Karathanos, K. (2009). Exploring U.S. mainstream teachers perspectives on use of the native language in instruction with English language learner students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(6), 615 633. Kendall, F. E. (2006). Understanding white privilege: Creating pathways to authentic relationships across race. New York, NY: Routledge. Kotterman, P., & Lentz, C. (2002). Ofcial ballot arguments against Proposition 203 from State of Arizona website. English First Ofcial Home Page. Retrieved from http://www.Englishrst.org/Be/Arizona/Az203anti.Htm Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D. (2005). Did immersion triumph in Arizona?. The ELL Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.coursecrafters.com/ELL-Outlook/2004/ sept_oct/ELLOutlookITIArticle4.htm Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But thats just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159 165. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465 491. Lee, O., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., Lewis, S., Thornton, C., & LeRoy, K. (2008). Teachers perspectives on a professional development intervention to improve science instruction among English language learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 41 67. Leistyna, P. (1998). Presence of mind: Education and the politics of deception. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lopez, E. C. (2006). Targeting English language learners, tasks, and treatments in instructional consultation. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 22(2), 59 79. de la Luz Reyes, M. & Halco n, J. J. (Eds.). (2001). The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students. Williston, VT: Teachers College Press. MacSwan, J. (2006). How language prociency tests mislead us about ability: Implications for English language learner placement in special education. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2304 2328.
182
Mahoney, K. S. (2005). Reexamining identication and reclassication of English language learners: A critical discussion of select state practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 31 42. McIntosh, P. (1990, Winter). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Independent School, 49(2), 31 36. Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. (2004). Part one: Focus on motivation and engagement. Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent English language learners through content area learning (pp. 68). Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons. Migration Policy Institute. (2012). States with the Largest and Fastest-Growing Immigrant Populations. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation. org/datahub/FB_maps/StateRankingsACS_2010_NFB_Growth_1990.pdf Miller-Whitehead, M. (2001). A review of the literature on early childhood cognitive academic language assessments suitable for use in ethnically diverse school systems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Education Research Association, November 14 16, Little Rock, AR. Mueller, T. G. (2006). Planning and language instruction practices for students with moderate to severe disabilities who are English language learners. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(3), 242 254. Munro, P. (1996). Resisting resistance: Stories women teachers tell. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12(1), 16 28. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Common core of data. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/ Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pease-Alvarez, L., & Samway, K. D. (2008). Negotiating a top-down reading program mandate: The experiences of one school. Language Arts, 86(1), 3241. Perea, J. F. (2001). The new American Spanish war: How the courts and the legislatures are aiding the suppression of languages other than English. In R. Duen lez & I. Melis (Eds.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on as-Gonza the ofcial English movement (pp. 121 139). Urbana, IL: NCTE/Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Roulston, K. (2007). Theorizing the qualitative interview. Paper presented at the meeting of the Third International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Salomone, R. C. (2012, January). Educating English learners: Reconciling bilingualism and accountability. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 6(1), 115 145. Sarroub, L. K. (2007). I was bitten by a scorpion: Reading in and out of school in a refugees life. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(8), 668 679. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York, NY: Teachers College. Simmons Jr., R. D. (2009). The efcacy of Floridas approach to in-service English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teacher training programs. Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 2(2), 112 126.
183
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1995). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In O. Garcia & C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundations (pp. 40 62). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2002). Language policies and education: The role of education in destroying or supporting the worlds linguistic diversity. Barcelona, Spain: World Congress on Language Policies. Sleeter, C. E. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Solo rzano, D., & Yosso, T. (2000). Toward a critical race theory of Chicana and Chicano education. In C. Tejeda, C. Martinez & Z. Leonardo (Eds.), Charting new terrains of Chicana(o)/Latina(o) education (pp. 19 37). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Stritikus, T. T., & Garcia, E. (2005). Revisiting the bilingual debate from the perspectives of parents: Policy, practice, and matches or mismatches. Educational Policy, 19(5), 729 744. Tse, L. (2001). Why dont they learn English? Separating fact from fallacy in the U.S. language debate. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language teachers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wainer, A. (2004). The new Latino south and the challenge to public education: Strategies for educators and policymakers in emerging immigrant communities. Los Angeles, CA: The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. Wyer, K. (2012). English-only policies in public schools found to fail: Legal experts and scholars examine English language education in CA, AZ, and MA. In The Civil Right Project/Proyectos Derechos Civiles, University of California. Retrieved from http://gseis.ucla.edu/sudikoff/archive/pdfs/ language/PR_Gandara_ForbiddenLanguage.pdf Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
184
APPENDIX A
The interviews: A descriptive chart

Self-descriptions of participants Introduced by Conditions Trust level assessment
Interview set
Type
First set of interviews
Two female teachers of White, female retired teacher, Two separate Medium eighth grade: bilingual, former colleague of both 90-minute interviews Mexican-American / Mexican participants in private homes of participants Three separate Low White, female district Second set of Individual interviews with white Three female teachers of 60-minute interviews administrator, director of interviews female interviewer kindergarten: bilingual, Mexican-American or personnel and coordinator in school library of some Spanish prociency of programs for English Hispanic language learners Two female teachers and Bilingual, Mexican-American One group interview High Third set of Group interview with interviews white female interviewer one male teacher of fth g school board member of three teachers in of some Spanish prociency rade: bilingual, fth grade classroom after Mexican-American school hours
Individual interviews with white female interviewer of some Spanish prociency

Bilingual Border

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bilingual Border

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

This article was downloaded by: [24.206.111.

Critical Inquiry in Language Studies

Saint Cloud State University

Georgia State University Published online: 06 Jun 2013.

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Goals for Bracketing and Researcher Self-awareness

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

Delicate Balance: Work of Bilingual Teachers

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013

K. R. Bratt and A. A. Cain

Downloaded by [24.206.111.249] at 09:08 30 June 2013