----

##  Two-Way Immersion Programs: Features and Statistics. ERIC Digest.            

Since 1991, the Center for Applied Linguistics has monitored the                growth of two-way immersion (TWI) programs in the United States.                This information is published online in the Directory of Two-Way                Immersion Programs in the United States (2000), accessible at                   www.cal.org/twi/directory. 
TWI programs integrate                             language-minority and language-majority students for all or most of             the school day and strive to promote bilingualism and biliteracy in             addition to grade-level academic achievement for all                            students (Christian, 1994). Programs listed in the Directory conform            to this general definition of TWI through adherence to the following            criteria: 1) language-minority and language-majority students are               integrated for at least 50% of the day at all grade levels; 2)                  content and literacy instruction in both languages are provided to              all students; and 3) language-minority and language-majority                    students are balanced, with each group making up one third to two               thirds of the total student population. 
The information in the                Directory is self-reported; it is based on responses to a                       questionnaire completed by representatives of the programs listed. A            new feature of the directory is a search function that makes it                 possible to identify programs that share characteristics, such as               location, student demographics, and program design. This digest                 summarizes findings from data in the directory regarding features of            TWI programs, students, and staff. National data are presented,                 along with similar data from the three states with the most                     programs--California (86), Texas (34), and New                                  York (20). OVERVIEWThe first TWI program in the United States             began in 1963. For the next 20 years, the growth of TWI programs was            minimal, with fewer than 10 documented programs in operation before             1981. The majority of programs in existence today were established              during the past two decades. The 2000 Directory includes 248 TWI                programs in 23 states and the District of Columbia. There has also              been considerable expansion within existing programs: Many have                 reported adding new grade levels each year, and 40 programs now                 extend into middle or high school. 
Program Location 
The majority            of TWI programs are in public schools; only four are operated by                private schools. Nearly a quarter of the public school programs                 operate in specialized environments: 11 are housed in charter                   schools and 53 in magnet schools. California has the most programs              operating in specialized environments, with eight charter school                programs and 22 magnet school programs. Relatively few TWI                      programs (32) are whole-school programs. About three quarters of the            elementary programs (191) operate as strands within schools, as do              all of the secondary programs (32). Twenty-five programs did not                respond to this question. 
Languages of Instruction 
Most TWI                 programs are Spanish/English (234). The other programs are                      Chinese/English (5), French/English (5), Korean/English (3), and                Navajo/English (2). (One school houses both a Spanish/English and a             Chinese/English program.) The majority of students enrolled in these            programs are native speakers of one or both languages of                        instruction. In 37 programs, however, more than 1% of the students              are native speakers of a language not used in the program (i.e.,                third language speakers). In nine programs, 5% are third language               speakers. PROGRAM MODELS AND LITERACY INSTRUCTIONA key                    decision in initiating a TWI program is the choice of a program                 model. Nationally, one of the two most common program models is                 minority-language dominant, which is used in 104 schools (42%). In              these "90/10" or "80/20" programs, the minority language is used for            instruction 80-90% of the time in the primary grades, with the                  instructional ratio of the minority language to English generally               reaching 50/50 by fourth grade. An additional 85 programs (33%) are             balanced programs ("50/50"); the amount of instructional time is                equal in the two languages at all grade levels. Only five                       programs (2%) separate students by native language for part of the              day in the primary grades and provide differing amounts of                      instruction in the two languages. Thirty-two programs (13%) are                 middle or high school programs, with models that differ from the                elementary model (Montone & Loeb, 2000). Twenty-two programs (9%)               provided no response. 
An interesting pattern emerges through                  examination of the predominant program models used in California,               Texas, and New York. In California, most programs (63%) are                     minority-language dominant. In Texas, the percentages of                        minority-language dominant programs (41%) and balanced                          programs (47%) are roughly equal. In New York, the majority of                  programs (60%) use the balanced model. There seem to be regional                norms for TWI programs, with no single program model being dominant             across the three states. California has the highest percentage of               middle and high school programs (19% of the state's TWI                         programs). 
Another essential decision that all TWI programs must              make is the language(s) in which initial literacy instruction will              be provided. Nationally, 31% of the programs use the minority                   language for initial literacy instruction for all students, 22%                 provide initial literacy instruction in both languages to all                   students, 20% separate the children by native language for initial              literacy instruction, 1% use English for all students, 14% do not               serve grade levels that require initial literacy instruction, and               12% are unreported. 
Compared to the national picture, California              has a larger percentage of programs (53%) that use the minority                 language to introduce literacy instruction to all children, and                 smaller percentages that use both languages for all students (15%)              or separate the students by native language (5%). The pattern in                Texas more closely mirrors that of the nation, with 41% using the               minority language for all students, 26% using both languages for all            students, and 18% separating the students by native language. In New            York, only one program (5%) reported using the minority language for            initial literacy instruction for all students, while 20% separate               the students by native language, and 40% use both languages for all             students. It is interesting to note that while the three main                   approaches to initial literacy instruction are practiced in all                 three states, regional norms appear to influence the extent to which            each of the three options is implemented. The percentages do not add            up to 100%, because they do not include programs that do not teach              primary grades nor programs that did not provide responses to this              question. STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICSThe stereotypical TWI program is            composed of two populations: Latino, low-income, native Spanish                 speakers and White, middle class, native English speakers. Although             there are certainly programs that conform to this stereotype,                   directory searches indicate there is greater diversity in the                   student populations of current TWI programs than the stereotype                 suggests. 
Racial/Ethnic Diversity 
Because students who are                  classified as native speakers of the minority language generally                belong to a single racial or ethnic group (e.g., Latino in the case             of native Spanish speakers), the racial and ethnic make-up of the               native English speakers is a more useful indicator of the overall               diversity of TWI programs. Nationally, a majority of TWI                        programs (54%) have a mixture of ethnicity, with no one ethnic group            making up more than 75% of the native English speakers. Another 34%             of programs have a predominant racial or ethnic group among their               native English speakers, but the specific racial or ethnic make-up              of that group varies across programs: 
Percent of programs                     Race/ethnicity of more than 75% of native English speakers: 
17%               White 
13% Latino 
2% African-American 
1% Asian 
1% Native                 American 
12% no response from program 
Like the national norm,               both California and New York have a majority of programs with no                clear racial or ethnic majority among native English speakers;                  however, the percentages of such programs in these states are higher            than the national figure (54%), with 66% and 60% respectively. At               35%, Texas has a much lower percentage of programs with no clear                racial or ethnic majority among its native English speakers. It also            has a much higher percentage of programs where more than 75% of the             native English speakers are Latino (35% compared to 7% for                      California and 10% for New York) and a slightly higher percentage of            programs where more than 75% of the native English speakers are                 White (21% compared to 13% for California and 15% for New York).                There are no programs in Texas or New York that have a majority of              African Americans or Asians, and no programs in any of the three                states have a majority of Native Americans. 
Socioeconomic                     Status 
Because eligibility for free or reduced lunch is determined            by family income, children who participate are often classified as              being at risk for low academic performance due to poverty. Working              with this definition, TWI programs appear to serve a sizable at-risk            population of both native English speakers and language minority                students. Nationally, about one third of programs (80 schools or                32%) report that more than half of both native English speakers and             language minority students participate in a free or reduced school              lunch program. California has 19 programs (22%) in which more than              half of both the native English speakers and language minority                  students receive free or reduced lunch, Texas has 17 (50%), and New             York has 9 (45%). 
Data confirm that there are more low-income                 language minority students than low-income native English speakers              enrolled in TWI programs. Nearly one quarter of the programs (60                programs or 24%) report that more than half of their language                   minority students and less than half of their native English                    speakers receive free or reduced lunch, but no schools report that              more than half of their native English speakers and less than half              of their language minority students receive free or reduced lunch.              This profile holds for each of the three states. In California, 30              programs (35%) report that more than half of their language minority            students and less than half of their native English speakers receive            free or reduced lunch. Texas has 8 such programs (24%), and New York            has one (5%). STAFFINGA serious concern of TWI programs is the            limited availability of qualified bilingual teachers and support                staff. (Support staff includes instructional assistants, bilingual              program coordinators, parent liaisons, and so forth.) However, more             than half (54%) of all TWI programs reported that 100% of their                 teachers are proficient in both program languages. The percentage in            California is even higher, with 70% of the programs reporting that              100% of their teachers are bilingual in the languages of                        instruction. In Texas (40%) and New York (45%), the percentages are             just below the national figure, with slightly less than half of the             programs in each state reporting that all teachers are                          bilingual. 
Nationally, only 29% of TWI programs report that 100%              of their support staff are proficient in both languages of                      instruction. Again, California has a higher percentage than the                 national figure, with 33% of programs reporting that 100% of the                support staff are bilingual. Texas also has a higher percentage than            the nation (44%), and interestingly, a slightly higher percentage of            programs in which 100% of support staff are bilingual than programs             in which 100% of teachers are bilingual. New York is just below the             national average, with only 20% of its programs reporting that all              teachers and support staff are bilingual in the languages of                    instruction. Fewer than 10% of programs, nationally and for all                 three states, report that fewer than half of their teachers and                 staff are proficient in both languages. CONCLUSIONThis digest             provides a more detailed description of TWI programs, students, and             staff on a national level than has previously been documented. It               also describes the variation in programs by geographical region,                something that has not been discussed in the literature to this                 point. This digest can thus serve as a useful starting point for                those conducting research on TWI programs. Practitioners in TWI                 programs may also find this document helpful as a way of placing                their local situation in a national context. Finally, as many TWI               programs are funded in part by federal grants from the U.S.                     Department of Education, this digest may be of interest to                      policymakers who want to know more about the types of programs and              students that are supported through such                                        grants. REFERENCESChristian, D. (1994). "Two-way bilingual                education: Students learning through two languages" (Educational                Practice Rep. No. 12). Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: National             Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language                   Learning. 
Directory of Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Programs in the            United States. (2000). Washington, DC: Center for Applied                       Linguistics. Available: www.cal.org/twi/directory 
Montone, C., &              Loeb, M. (2000). "Implementing two-way immersion programs in                    secondary schools" (Educational Practice Rep. No. 5). Santa Cruz,               CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education,                       Diversity & Excellence. 
----- 
The work reported herein was                  conducted by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity &                  Excellence with funding from the Office of Educational Research and             Improvement of the U. S. Department of Education under Cooperative              Agreement No. R306A60001-96. 
This digest was prepared with funding            from the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and            Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no.                  ED-99-CO-0008. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the            positions or policies of ED, OERI, or NLE.                                   **Title:** Two-Way Immersion Programs: Features and Statistics. ERIC Digest.            **Note:** Work conducted by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity &             Excellence.                                                                  **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, 4646 40th Street               NW, Washington, DC 20016. For full text:                                        http://www.cal.org/ericcll/DIGEST.                                           **Descriptors:**  Databases,  Directories,  English (Second Language),  Immersion                Programs, Second Language Instruction, Second Language Learning,                 Student Characteristics, Teaching Methods                                   **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests,  Two Way Bilingual Education, United States                    
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]