T, GRIEGO-JONES

Configurations of bilingual programs within
districts, dependingin large parton the numbers
of limited English proficient (LEP) students in a
district, abo have implications for discrictwide
implementation of bilingual programs. V

students are likely to have many school—even

ry

rae urban districts with thousands of LEP

a majority—with bilingual programs. For these
districts, the plan for invalving school district
personnel and accessing district resources might
include Clustering schools to treat them ay one

unit and consolidating resources.

There is a trend toward the ides of rargeting
whole unity, whether they be schools, clusters
of schools, or whole districts. ay the focus for

eform. For example. some schools that used
( i | hools Ud i

to “have” Tile | programs now “are” school-

wide ‘Tide 1 More and more schools are
organizingaround a focusorspecialisation, real-
iving that the focus lends an aspect of coherence
to curriculum and instruction, Fora variety of

reasons, including research that illustrates the

clticacy ofa schoobwide approach to instruction
as opposed to a fragmented programs approach,
a trend coward the sehoohwide conceptis emerg-
ing (U.S. Department of Education, 1994), In

the cave of 'Fitle 1, designating an entire school

aly

tle Fis seen as focusing resources, exper=
tise, and instructional methods on the general

population of disadvantaged students and not

worrying about whether every cluld fits spe-

cific federal guidelines. According to an In-

aw Par

dependent Rev i evaluating the school-
wide concept in Title 1, this option promotes
the kind of organizational and programmatic

flexibility that allows reconfiguration of the

school day. cooperation among instructional

staff, control of resources, and freedom from

restrictive mandates covering “minutiae of

educational procedures” (U.S. Department

of Education, 1994).

Applying the same logic to schools with large

numbers of children fiom Spanish speaking

homes (or any lang

aye other than English),
whether the children are identified as LEP or
not, should result in offering the benefits of
bilingual education to all children in a given
school, Utilizing both Spanish and English vo

teach children from: Spanish speaking home

can’thelp but maximize their understanding of

content and develop both of their languages
Spending time on developing both languages
instead of worrying about whether children’s
test scores fall above ar below a standard test

score to designate them as LEP would maximize

language development, Children from English
speaking homes ate also entitled to the opportu:
nity to learn a second language, Hf the whole
school was invested in dual language develop

ment asa focus. all students would benefit.

‘There is at least one bilingual model in which a

total bilingual school focus is already feasible

and in place, Two-way bilinguat schools have
developed a program around a schoolwide fo-
cus, that of teaching all students a second lan-
guage and delivering instruction in wo lan-
guages. When an entire school is designated
bilingual. there is no question that all resources

twill be

that normally flow from the distri
supporting implementation of the bilingual
program and that all school personnel will be

involved in dual Language development.

Other situations in which bilingual program
implementation would automatically beschool-
wide are site-based: management schools that

have a majority ofstudents from homes where a

1
Lg



nthe United States today there are approx-
imately 1,000 federally funded or private
bilingual education programs in K-12
schools. Beginning in 1968 with the fund-
ing of Title Vi of the Elementary and Second-
ary Eduestion Act, bilingual programs have

spread across the country and are now institu-

tionalized in most of the nation’s largest urban
school systems, They are beginning to be part of
the suburban and rural educational landseapes
aswell. Even in states that historically had few

bilingual. programs,

OW programs al

: being
implemented or existing ones expanded as the
number of language minority: students increas
es. With the expansion of students and pro-
grams, there is a renewed interest and need ta

look at how bilingual programs can be incorpo-

rated into schoal districts more ¢

ctively.

In general, bilingual programs have been initiat-
ed in response to community pressures, court

orders. or the promise of federal and state fiinds.

‘They have rarely been implemented by edu
tors within schoo! systems simply because they
believed that bilingual programs were more ef-
fective ways af teaching students. Perhaps be-
cause of these beginnings, the programs have
heen considered “out of the mainstream” by
educators—bilingual and non-bilingual per-
‘This non-mainstream status

sonnel. alike.

may also he due to the fact that bilingual

programs have served a minority of students—
small numbers in some districts, large num
bets in others, but still not the majority of a

district's students, Further, che perception that

bilingual programs are temporary. in spite of

their proliferation over the last qwenty-five

se is seill py

sive in many school dis-

triets. The peculiarly American aversion to
learning more than one language has also
undoubtedly contributed to the “outof-the-

mainstream status.”

Bilingual programs are often described as pro-
grams for students who are being transitioned
from astate of unreadiness for the regular school
program to a level of English proficiency that
qualifies them to enter the real (mainstream)
program. It is noc unusual for bilingual teachers
themselves to describe their work as preparing
students for mainstream classrooms. Further:
more, programs are often evaluated on the basis
of exiting students from them. Interestingly.
even though most bilingual classrooms focus

on transitioning students 1 mainstream class=

rooms, the mainstream teachers on the ree

ing end of the transition often have no knowl-
edge of what occurs in bilingual classrooms.
‘The majority of teachers in mainstream class
rooms are monolingual and may not under-
stand what students have experienced in learn-
ing theie second language in bilingual
classrooms: nor do they automatically realize
their own responsibility and role in support

ing the language development of incoming

ited” students, This is not surprising, given
thac teacher preparation programs have ignored
teaching about second language learning, about
the role and importance of a child's native
language, or about how to teach content to

students learning English asa second language.

BILINGUAL PROGRAMS



ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Toni Griego Jones is Associate Dean of the
School of Education at the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She isalso Associate
Professor in the Department of Curriculum
and Instruction and has been director of the
Bilingual Teacher Education Program there
for the past seven years. She was formerly a
bilingual classroom teacher and adminis-

trator in the Denver Public Schools.



|. GRIEGO- JONES:

non-bilingual staff to learn about program
goals and needs. Consider what would: be
meaningful to district personnel-— what would

they recognize as indicators of support for

their |

adership? Identify leaders whe do
support the bilingual program and develop a
plan of action for what you want them to do.
Include them in publicity and marketing cam-
paigns to celebrate successes and promote the
bilingual program. Foster-relationships: with
the press and media within the district and
surrounding area and target marker audiences

(e.g.. parents. policy makers, teachers and

teachers unions, and support services person-

nel.

2. SPECIFIC AND DETAILED GUIDELINES FOR EACH
UNIT IN THE DISTRICT

Phe court agreement in the study contained
guidelines for various departments (curriculum,
personnel, evaluation, and elementary and see-
ondary instructional departments) that helped
to define roles. Staff development sessions then
communicated those roles to the responsible
parties. The important point here isnot what the
provisions of the court agreement were, bur thar
respondents believed the job of implementing
the bilingual program had been facilitated by the
clearly defined provisions for them and others

Chis clear understanding was a major differ

sce
between other esamples of change and the im-

plementation of the bilingual program.

All research findings suggest it is important ta
identify and clarify specific duties and re-

sponsibilities in implementation, In the case

alua-

of bilingual programs, units like testing, €

tion, curriculum, and instruction offer mainst.

services to classrooms and school buildings.

‘Therefore, it is important to target rhem and

make their roley cléar. For example. bilingual
programs have major needs in data collection,

alliances

testing, and documentation. Stror

then, should be developed with testing and
evaluation units. Time spene up front helping
others to understand the program's needs
(along with the leadership's statements of
support) should facilitate obtaining needed
resourees as the program progresses. Initial
planning should include identifying all units

that have something

to offer bilingual pro-

grams, making a checklist of what is needed
from them, and planning how to approach
individuals within each unit. Bilingual pro-
gram personnel could even be placed as part
of the implementation plan in various units.

even if temporarily on spesial assignment ar

on a rotating, basis.

‘There should also be a clear understanding
between schools and central administration
of expected services and of how buildings are
to communicate their needs regarding their
bilingual programs. Identify all incoming re-

sources from various sources (district, sttte.

federal, and private foundations) for students
in any given building and look for the bilin-
gual students’ share. ‘Too often. bilingual class-
rooms have relied on their own program budgets

or Tide VIE funds for materials that should be

provided to all children enrolled in the school

district.

Another avenue for involving all district units
and resources is to ensure that the bilingual pro-
gram’s perspective is represented in all facets of

school and district governance. For example, in

schools with site-based governance. bilingual
teachers and parents need to be represented in

proportion to their numbers in the school.

ne

6


and so forth) and classroom models or instruc-
tional methodologies (Ginsburg, 1992). Whar

we know about bilingual program implementa-

tion comes primarily as a by-product of evalua

tion studies of from directors’ progress reports

(Development Associates. Ine. 1993: Lucas.
Katz, and Ramage, 1992; Mertens, Bateman,
and ‘Tallmadge, 1990: Nava, Reisner, Douglas,
Johnson, Morales
1986: Ramirez, David, Yuen, Ramey. and Dena,

1991; Tallmadge. Lam. and Gamel. 1987: Wile

and Tallmadge, 1984; Pena,

lig, 1985). In these evaluations and reports.
information on factors important to implemen-
ration is usually stated in rerms of obstacles and

barriers to effective programsor, alternatively.as

facilitating factors. Briefly. the factors identified
in these studies and reports as affecting imple-
mentation are:

supportand commitment from district lead=

ership (ic. superintendent and/or schoo!
board):

staff development and training:
coordination and collaboration among ad-

ministrative units (bilingual program and

units such as curriculum, testing, elemen-

tary and secondary instruction, human
resources);
cffective communication throughout entire

schools and distrie

adequate resource allocation:

parent/commanity support: and

effective working relationships with state
education agencies.
A common theme that threads through the
reports is. the importance of coordinating
with the mainstream program to effectively
garner resources and services. ‘This coordina-
tion and collaboration is recognized ay impor
tant both when it happens and when it is

absent. Yet there remains a notable absence of

planning for utilizing coord

AALION as a sural

cgy for implementation.

Other sources of information on bilingual

program implementation are studies on im-

plementing desegregation orders. In distriets
where bilingual programs have been part of
the remedy in court judgments against school
systeins, documentation of the process of
operationalizing court orders provides some
clues about factors important in implement:
ing bilingual programs (Baez, 1993: Craw-
ford, 1989), Some of the same facilitating or
enhancing factors found in program evalua-

tions are also found in these studies:

support from school boards and central of:
fices;

staff’ development and training;

adequate resources: and

inherent in the case for integration, commu:
nication and coordination with mainstream

personne! and students.

In educational fiteratureon change, reform, and
implementation in general, the same factors
(hoard and superintendent support, staff devel
opment, adequate resources. communication,
and collaboration) have been identified repeat-
edly as important tw incorporating new initia-
tives into schools or districts (Bacharach, 1990;
Fallan, 1990; Sarason, 1982). Since bilingual
education isan educational reform effort aimed
at improving schooling, lessons learned from the
literature on educational change and reform in

general should also be used to put bilingual pro-

grams into place. For example. one significant
new insight gained from attempts to improv
education. especially from the unprecedented
reform activity in the last decade. is the impor-

tance of a comprehensive, holistic approach to

—
3

BILINGUAL PROGRAMS:



|

T. GRIEGO-JONES

IMPORTANCE OF INCORPORATING BILINGUAL
PROGRAMS INTO THE MAINSTREAM

‘The isolation and consequent lack of conrec-

tion betw

n bilingual and non-bilingual pro-

grams within most de

gnated hilinguat schools

is so profound thar designated bilingual schools

ally wo

building—one with a bilingual scrand of clays:
rooms and the other with “regular” classrooms
Vhiy practice of allowing bilingual programs to

be discrete programs apart fram the mainstream

presents some serious, inherent problems

Firsc.itfostersalienation between bilingual teach-
ers and the non-bilingual stall’ in designated

bilingual school. ‘There are reports of bilin-

gual teachers feeling like second class citizens
within their buildings and. on the other hand.
of mainstream teachers miserusting and mis-
understanding the motives and methods of
bilingual teachers (Ovando and Collier, 1985),
Secondly, bilingual students are deprived of
the support and resources available to other

students in their schools. Thirdly, the isolation

and separation denies native English speakers

the potemial benefits of bilingual education.
Fourth, the indifference or. in some eases. hos
tility. encountered by bilingual teachers and
adminisirators who are attempting to imple:
ment new programs or expand older oney can

efivetively prevent putting them in place.

Ifa program cannot adequately be integrated
into the system, it has very little chance of
succeeding in accomplishing its instructional
mission. Inorder to ensure the successful incor.
poration of the current new and expanding
programs. renewed attention must be given to
thoughdul planning and implementation of

Programs.

STATUS OF BILINGUAL PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION

Uneil now, implementation of bilingual pro-
gramy in movt districts has generally been re-
garded ay the business of designated bilingual
personnel only, primarily teachers and program

directors. ‘Those noe direetly involved in the

delivery af bilingual inseruction or adminiser

tion of programy have not usually

aken respon-
sibility for implementing them. Moreover. pro-
gram implementation has not typically been a

districtwide concern. District personnel ay a

whole generally do not know the program goals
and needs and have not considered it part of
their job to participate in the implementation of

bilingual programs.

Kor their part, bilingual teachers and adminix

trators too have not generally approached the

task of putting bilingual programs imo place as

a districnwide. or even schoolwide. concern.

Bilingual personnel do acknowledge the need

for discriet- or school-level support. but it is not

clear how that acknowledgment cranslates into

specific action and responsibilities for people

notin the bilir

sal program. The resule is that
bilingual program directors take on the imple-
mentation of programs ay something they alone
are responsible for. letting other district person-
nel olf the hook and taking on or duplicating
tasks that others are responsible for in- most

instances of program implementation

A review of the literature on daplementation of
bilingual programs shows that there hay been

litele formal study of the actual process of put-

ting bilingual programs into place. Most re-
search on bilingual programs hay tacused on
determining the efivetiveness of different types

of programy (transitional, immersion, late exit.



IMPLEMENTING BILINGUAL PROGRAMS
1S EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS

Until now. implementation of bilingual pro-
grams in most districts has generally been re-
garded as the business of designated bilingual

personnel only. primarily teachers and program

directors. ‘Those not directly involved in the
delivery of bilingual inscruction or administra-
tion of programs have not usually taken respon
sibility for implementing them, Moreover. pro-
gram implementation has not rypically been a
discrictwide concer, District personnel ay a
whole generally do not know the program goals
and needs and have not considered it part of
their job tw participate in che implementation of
bilingual programs. Thinking of bilingual edu-
cation as a districtwide or schoolwide reform
effort involves changes in the traditional roles of
school personnel and mandates thoughtful at-

tention on how to involve all participants.

Implementing Bilingual Programs Is Everybody's
Business discusses the status of bilingual pro-
gram implementation to dace: highlights factors
affecting the effective impiementation of dis-
trictwide bilingual education programs as found
in the education literature on change, reform,
and implementation: and identifies six factors
facilitating involvement of non-bilingual per-
sonnel in the planning and implementation of
bilingual education programs on a districtwide
scale, Suggested activities for developing an in-

clusive implementation plan are included

NGBE

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education
1118 22nd Street NW A Washington DC 20037

“1g



tion of a new primary grades curriculum, whole

guage, new reading programs, desegregation

orders

site-based governance, and decentraliza-

tion,”

he bilingual program was surprising be-

cause von-bilingual personnel as well as the few

che

respondents who happened to be bilingual tea
ers or administracors identified the bilingual
expansion as an example of effective implemen-
ng

ly give clues as to how chose outside of bilingual

tation and chi

. Pheir descriptions specifical-

programsean beinvolved

mplementing them.

According to respondents, the bilingual imp|

mentation not only involved bilingual teachers
and administrators, but also actively involved
other people from most departments inthe
system. including personnel, curriculum, and
testing and evaluacion. The widespread involve-

ment of parts of the system not only scemed ro

facilitate clearer perceptions of program imple
mentation throughoui the system, bur also lene

support co putting ne

ary pieces in place.

DEVELOPING AN INCLUSIVE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN

Distr

+ personnel interviewed in the study iden-
tified six factors as facilitating involvement of
non-bilingual personnel, ‘These factors are con-
sistent with information gleaned from bilingual
program evaluations and educational: reform

are discussed below,

findings in general. ‘The

with comments on héw they facilitated invalve-
ment of personnel on a districewide scale, along

with suggestions for specific activities.

1. VISIBLE AND STRONGLY STATED SUPPORT FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT

Statements from all respondents indicated that
the strong declarations of support for the bilin-

gual program made by the saperintendent were

important to widespread involvement in the
implementation, Central office administrators
and principals especially acknowledged that the

superintendent’s message carried weight with

them and that they knew they were expected to

s. They assumed ownership as they
were direeted to learn about the bilingual pro-
gram and to exert leadership in implementation

of various provisions of the program within their

respective units

From all the reform literature it is clear that
strong and visible support from the leader-
ship. schaal board, and/or superintendent, is
crucial to implementation. Logically. it is also
critical to involving non-bilingual personnel in
the implementation of bilingual programs. Ir is
not enough for district leaders to allow programs
to exist or to accept state and federal funding
for them. ‘They mast visibly, consistently,
and strongly show cheir own commitment co
putting bilingual programs in place. Further,
leaders muse communicate the expectation
that others—central administrators, princi-
pals, and teachers—will also lend their active
support to the implementation and mainte-
nance of programs as part af their professional

responsibilities.

In planning tor bilingual program implemen-
tation then, think about Aaw leaders in a
particular district can demonstrate support
through specific actions such as writing mens-

oranda in support of specific activities, mak

ing public announcements of support, draft-
ing letters to the community from the board
and superintendent explaininy programy goals
and strengths, and initiating and mediating

meetings beeween bilingual administrators and

3

ate bilingual implementation as part of

BILINGUAL PROGRAMS



DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 388 089 FL 023 340
AUTHOR Griego-Jones, Toni
TITLE Implementing Bilingual Programs Is Everybody's

Business. Focus: Occasional Papers in Bilingual
Education 11.

INSTITUTION National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education,
Washington, DC.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages

: Affairs (ED), Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 95

CONTRACT 7292008001
NOTE 19p,

AVAILABLE FROM National Clearinghouses for Bilingual Education, 1118
22nd Street N.W., Washington, DC 20037.

PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)
(120)

EDRS PRICE MFO1/PCOl Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Administrative Organization; “Agency Cooperation;

*Bilingual Education Programs; Change Strategies;
Educational Change; Organizational Change; Peer
Teaching; Program Administration; “Program
Implementation; School Districts; *Staff Development;
*Teacher Role; “Teacher Supervision

ABSTRACT

A discussion of the role of bilingual education
programs focuses on their function as a district-wide or school-wide
reform effort, rather than as a discrete program within a larger
system. It'is proposed that this approach requires changes in the
traditional roles of school personnel and thoughtful attention to how
to involve all participants. Recasting bilingual programs as
district- or school-wide reform implies that non-bilingual personnel
need to assume ownership for specific aspects of implementation, and
that bilingual personnel must expand their activity into the total
operations of schools and districts, A study of the perceptions of
school district personnel involved in change efforts in urban
schools, in which this issue emerged, is noted. Six factors
identified as facilitating involvement of non-bilingual personnel in
an inclusive implementation plan are outlined: (1) visible and
strongly stated support from the superintendent; (2) specific and
detailed guidelines for each unit in the district; (3) intensive and
ongoing staff development; (4) organizational modifications; (5) use
of classroom teachers as trainers; and (6) rotation of teachers in
supervisory/mentor positions. Some additional considerations are
discussed briefly. A bibliography is included. (MSE)

tesese fede dee sea se desde eve dese dese seat sede

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from igi document *



T, GRIEGO-JONES

restructuring. Educational reform in general iy
changing many accepted practices within school

districts so it is an opportune time for bilingual

programs to identify and makeadjusuments that

break down barriers (0 successful implementation.

5, THE USE OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS AS TRAINERS
Extensive use of bilingual and non-bilingual
teachers with expertise in areas like the whole
Janguage appraach to teaching reading served to

facilitate understanding between bilingual and

non-bilingual teaching staff's within building
inthe study cited. The ase of bilingual and non-
bilingual teachers with experrive in language
development fostered mutual respect and had

potential for creating a more collaborative cli-

mateberween thewo groups of teachers, W

ing together in planning and delivering siaff

development disemin

d knowledge and ap-

preci

ation lor the work of bilingual teachers. Ie

alo lene them support as non-bilie

gual teachers
learned more about issues related tw second

language learning and were. therefore, able to

help educate other non-bilingual stat

The significant involvement of dlassroom teach-

ery in the e

mple of change in the study was
strikingly different from other examples cited.
‘The utilization of bodh groups of teachers as
staff developers has the potential to conuih-
ute greatly to participant “buy in.” a factor
that is widely acknowledged in research litera
ture on educational reform as crucial to seccess-

ful integration of new programs.

8. ROTATION OF TEACHERS IN SUPERVISORY
POSITIONS

In the change study. teachers were not only
asked to serve ay trainers but alo assisted in

mentoring new teachers and serving as bilin-

gual resource teachers or coordinatary of var-

ious aspects of the bilingual program imple-

mentation, Without forcing teachers to leave
their teaching positions. some teachers were
released to assist in implementing provisions

of the court order, identifving needs of new or

inexperienced teachers. writin

and selecting and ordering curricular materi-
als. Working with units throughout the dis-
trict human resources, curriculum, staff

development. testing and. evaluation—fucili

tated contact between the unity and bilingual

teachers and fostered better understanding of

programmatic goals, needs. and instructional
eI :

ies. He also clevaced the status of bilin-

strate

gual personnel in the eyes of central office

vided teachers with

administrators and

opportunities co learn more about ihe dis:

tricts administrative structure.

Finally. besides the six clements discussed
above, school district personnel identified
participant buy-in and time as key factors that
surfaced repeatedly inthe descriptions of the
bilingual program implementation. Increasing
the participation of more district personnel
including non-bilingual teachers and adminis-
ratory, logically: increases the potential for buy-

in and support for bilingual programs. Maxi-

mizing the buy-in from non-bikingual as well

chane-

as bilingual personnel can maximize the
es of incorporating, bilingual programs into

the mainstream of schools and districts.

Lime to reflect and absorb change is also found

to be key in allowing programs to tke hold in

districts, In the ease of bilingual programs. ther

are aspects chat require exceptional amounts of

time, Forexample. itisdifficult to find qualified

teachers who are Huent in both languages of

mea


| ceeaaashcell

8, INTENSIVE AND ONGOING STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Stalf development in the district. studied inchided

training for support staff and paraprofessional
as well ay teachers, principals, and central atd-
ministrators. Sesion included information about
requirements mandated by the court fer the
program, and about first and second language
acquisition theory. Some staff development ses-
sions were open to non-bilingual teachers. when
possible, and there were opportunities specifi-

cally for non-bilingual personnel to learn or

improve Spanish and thereby increase the po-
tential pool of bilingual teachers, ‘The intensive.
inclusive nature of the staff development, cou-
pled with the publicity of the court sertlement.
helped make the program very visible in the

distric

. Peoplewho had not previously attended

to bilingual programs were now a part af them.

An obvious implication of the findings from the

study of districe personnel perspectives as well as

from the broader literature is thae relationships
between bilingual and non-bilingual personne!
need to be facilitated: they don’t just happen.
Opportunities need to be structured for sharing
bilingual teachers’ expertiseand recognizing that
of non-bilingual wachers. Specifically identify:
ing what individual teachers from bath groups
can offer the bilingual program and the entire
school could establish professional respect and
cooperation and foster a climate of inclusive-
ness. Addressing the knowledge gap ofall teach-
ers. especially non-bilingual teachers, about see-
we

instruction, and other major components of

ond langtage acquisition, native langua

bilingual education could facilitate toral schoo!
involvement in bilingual programs. Alternatives

to inservice for “ag this could be cla

room

exchanges. joi sricuhum planning, and joint

planning for training other teachers.

Finally, think by

maximize support a

snd the classroom in order to

nd resources. Plan stall
development for all personnel, including affice
workers, support staff, custodians, kitchen sealt,
and soon. All adults in che building contribure
wo the climate of the school and provide services

to children,

4, ORGANIZATIONAL MODIFICATIONS 19 EXISTING
PRACTICE

In the stud

’. court mandated structural adap-
tations facilitated involvement of non-bilin-
gual personnel by forcing changes in district
processes and procedures. Some examples of
organizational modification’ to existing prac:
tices were:
written job descriptions and detailed proce:
dures for placing bilingual reachers, includ
ing testing for Spanish proficiency:
uansfer procedures for those who did not
qualify for bilingual classrooms to other po-
sitions;
adjustments to budgets for paid after-hours
sessions: and
release time for teacher participation as train-
ers for the new program,
Many of the adjustments necessitated commu

nicationand cooperation with the teachers’ union

in working out placement and transfer proce
dures for bilingual and mainstream teachers
affected by the new program requirements, In-
clusion of the union in the planning and imple-
key

smooth transfer of a number of teachers within

Menuation was

factor in the relatively

the district. ‘The constant contact between the
union and bilingual teachers was also a learning

experience for both groups

Many school districts have gone beyond making

adjustments to parts of the system to full scale

he
be

—
7

BILINGUAL PROGRAMS



J. GRIEGO-JONES

reform and change. one that involves all stake-

holdersand alfeersall aspects of schooling (Boy-
» 1999; Fullan, 1990; Martin, 1992; Schorr,

1989). *

«

ficant

his particular approach has sign

implications forbilingual program implementa-

tion, in that it pcints out the importance of

inclusion. In other words, ail actors in designat-

ed bilingual schools and districts with bilingual

progrms-—ineluding non-bilingual personnd—
must be involved in the business of incorporat

ing bilingual programs into schools or distrie:s

Even so. in reviewing the educational reform
literature, there were relatively few studies that

included bilingual programs as part of the ve-

form movements sweeping through school

systems in recent Sars, These few studies are

part of the research on “at risk” students
(Valdivieso. 1991), on achievement of Latino
r, LOOT),

However. the focus is again on classroom

students, and on restructuring (Pra

cfivctiveness, nor on how programs are incor:

porated inte school systems.

Inonly oneinstance—a study of the perceptions

of school district personnel involved in change

forts in urban schooly—did bilingual program
implementation surface in the broader context
of educational change and reform, In this study.

the implementation of a bilingual program

emerged asoneexample of change in thesystem.

This was significant because perceptual exam-

ples were volunteered by sehual district personnel
including those not in the bilingual program, as
they described their own actions and how they
perceived the roles of others in implementing
change. Because findings from the study sup-
port the idea that bilingual programs can be
implemented with the active, conscious involve

ment of non-bilingual personnel as well as those

working in bilingual classrooms and program

administra

ion, the study is described below,

‘The research was conducted in three large urban

school discricts in the Midwest, Southwest. and
West Coast in the late 1980s, Each district had
a bilingual program and a racially and ethnically
diverse student population where minorities—
primarily Hispanies and African Amvericans=~
comprised from 50 to 87 percent of the overall

student population. Individual on-site inter-

views with respondents were audiotaped using a
semi-structured protocol designed 10 elicit ex

amples of change that had taken place in their

districts as well as information about their own
involvement in the changes in their school sys-
tems, Superintendents and central adiinistra-
tory in charge of personnel, curriculum, testing,
and elementaryand secondary instructional pro-
grams for each district were interviewed as well

astwo principalsand we to four teachers in each

district (Griego-Jones, 1990). Program diree-

tors of

arious recently initiated programs were
alo interviewed. Additional data were collected
through abservations in central administrative

offices and schools and historical research. Data,

were analy

ed qualitatively using an ethnograph
computer program to determine examples and
definitions of change, and coiamonalities and

differences in concepts of change within the

various levels of district personnel and between

districts. The goal of the study

was to gain infor:
mation that would facilitate efforts to improve
practice in school systems. Since the study was
not focused on any particular kind of program,
interviews did not ask about specific reform
initiatives, Surprisingly, respondents from ane
district in che study identified implementation

of a bilingual progeam as an example of discrict-

wide change. Other examples given were init



Implementing Bilingual Programs
Is Everybody's Business

Toni Griego-Jones
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Spring 1995

4q



language other than English is spoken, In these
schools, at least theoretically, federal, state, and

district resources can be used at the discretion of

those within the building. If the building is

predominantly composed of bilingual classrooms
and staff, bilingual education should be the

major component of the instructional pro

um.
Again, if the majority of students come mostly
fiom Spanish speaking homes (although not
de

organized around using both languages for ma

nated as LEP) the entire school could be

inrum language development.

CONCLUSIONS

Programs are in place in almost all school dis-

tricts enrolling langua

ge minority children and
districts with increasing numbers are beginning

implementation of new programs.

‘Thinking of bilingual education asa districtwide
or sehoohvide reform effort involves changes in
the traditional roles of school personnel and
mandates thoughtful attention to how to in-
volve all participants, Recasting bilingual pro-
grams as district- or schoolwide refurms implies

that non-bilingual personnel need to assume

ownership for specific aspects of implementa-

tion of programs. Tt ako implies chat bilingual
personnel must expand their activity into”the
total operations of schools and districts, “Phat

this is possible was illustrated in the study re-

ported above, That this is needed is strongly

suggested by the burg

ning body of research in
educational reform on the effectiveness of an
integrated. comprehensive approach to initia

ingnew programs. incudingbilingual programs.

In what appears to be a timely and logical
progression, the newly authorized Improving

America’s Schools Act (ASA) of 1994 begins to

redefine federally funded bilingual programs as
part of systemic, districtwide, o7 schoolwide
reform efforts. Clearly, the intent of the new
legislation is to provide a direction away from
the old compensatory model toward recasting
bilingual programsas reform efforts that are part
of a larger whole, needing resources from that
whole. The challenge for bilingual educators at
the school level is to reorient the implementation

of programs in schools and districts toward a

districrwide approach. This is no small task as

the perception of bilingual programs as remedi-
al, limited programs is well entrenched in school

ystems. A reorientation will take conscious

reflective planning on the part of bilingual
personnel. If we succeed in recasting bilingual
education as a legitimate educational reform
that requires planning for districtwide responsi-
bilities and repercussions, we ean look forward

to more active involvement of all personnel in

the implementation of programs.

REFERENCES

Bacharach, $. (Ed.). (1990), Felueation reform:
Makingsense of itall. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,

Baez. V. (1993). Protecting the rights of national
origin language minority students during the
implementation of race desegreqation plan,
Milwaukee, WI:
Milwauke

Development.

University of Wisconyin-

Comer for Urban Community
<e )

Boyer, E. (1990), What to teach, how to teach it.
and to wham: The new agenda for the nation’s
schools. In S. Bacharach (Ed.). Fducation re-

form: Making sense of it all. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.
Crawlord, J. (1989). Bilingnal education: His-
tory, politics, theory, and practice, “Trenton,

NJ: Crane Publishing Company, Ine.

BILINGUAL PROGRAMS



detach here

OTHER TITLES AVAILABLE FROM NCBE

NCBE Focus Occasional Papers and Program
Information Guides cost $3.50 per copy. To
orderanyof thetitleslisted, circle their number(s.
provide the information requested, and detach
and mail this page, along with your check or
purchase order, to; NCBE Orders, 1118 22nd
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037.

FOCUS OCGASIONAL PAPERS

10. For all students: Limited English proficient
students and Goals 2000, \).
Hakuta & D. Pompa, 1994,

©. Bilingual education: A look to the year 2000.
GON. Garcia, L994

uguye with K

8. Distance learning: The eallenge far a
multicultural society. A. Barveta, 1993.
School readiness and language minority students:

Implications of the first National Education
Goal. C.D. Prince & L.A. Lawrence, 1993,

6. Rethinking the edreation of teach

s of language
minurity children: Developing reflective teachers
for changing sebuols, R. Milks ct al. 1992

Programs for secandary LEP students:
California study, C. Minicueci & 1 Olsen, 1992.

1. Teaching and testing achievemed

language development. M.Saville-Vroike, 191.

3. Bilingual education: A focus an current research

8.1. Rrashen, 1991

rt re

2. Early childhood programs far lai. guage minority
children. VA, Nissani, 1990,

1. Bilingualism and bilingual education: A research
perspective, Ke Hakuta, 1990,

PROGRAM INFORMATION GUIDES

20, Recaust che bilingual special education
interface... roca & J. 5. de Valensucla, 1994,

19, Working with English language learners:
Strategies for elementary and middle school
teachers. A.M. / cher, 1994

18. Whole-schoal bilingual education programs:
Approachesfor sannd assessment. A. Vel Vecchio
etal. 1994

17. Famnily literacy for language minavity families:
Issues for program implementation. M. Mulhern,
F. Rodrigues-Brown & fF. Shanahan. 198

1

Multicultural education: Strategies for
linguistically dive
Menkart, 1993,

¢ schools and classrooms. V.

» The vale of

18 Reforming mathematics instruction far ESL
Fiteraey students. K. Buchanan & M. Uelma
1993

It. Applying elements af effective secondary schooling
for language minority students. V. Vucas, 1993,

13. The Literacy Club: A evoss-age tutoring/paired

look & C. Urrua, 1993,

reading praject. 8

2. Cauperative learning in the secondary school:
Ma
achievement, and social development. ). Holi,
B, Chips & D. Wallace, 1992.

11. Teaching science ta English learners, Grades 4-

8. A. Fathman, M. Quinn & C. Kesler, 1992

Writer's workshop and children acquiring

imizing langnage acquisition, academic

10.

English as a non-native language. K. Davies
Samay, 1992,
9, Performance and portfolio assessment for
Language minority students, L. Valder Picree &
|. Michael O'Malley 1992,
8. The Newcomer Pragram: Helping immigrant
studentssucceedin U.S, schools. M. briedlander,
1991
Integrating language and cantent instruction:
Strate

jes and techniques. 1). |. Short. 1991

6. Fostering home-school cooperation: Involving
language minarity familie

as partners in
education. ¥, Nioland-Sing her C. P. Sutton &
HW. Ware, 2991

‘School based management: What bilingual and
ESL program directorsshould know, D. McKeon
& 1. Malar, 1991,

A. Using interpreters and translators ta meet the
needs of handicapped language minoritystudents
and their families. SW bradd & DR. Wilen,
1990,

3. Informalassessment in evaluation ofeducational
programs: Implications for bilingual education

programs, C. Navarrete ct al., 1990.

Integrating learning styles and skills in the ESL.
classroom: An approach ta lesson planning,
Violand Hainer etal, 1990,

ORDER INFORMATION

Name:

Address: __

Phone:



‘The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education
(NCBE) is funded by the U.S, Departmentaf Education's
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages
Affairs (OBEMLA) and is operated under Contract No.
292008001 by The George Washington University,
Graduate School of Education and Human Develop.

ment, Center for Policy Studies. The contents of this

pul

on do not necessarily reflect the views or policies

of the Department of Education, nor does the mention of

trade names, commercial products, or organizations im-
ply endorsement by the U.S, Government, Readers are
fice to duplicate and use these materials in keeping with
accepted publication standards. NCBE requests that proper

credit be given in the event of reproduction.

Director: Joel Gomez

Series Editor: Minerva Gorena

The

S on
iniversity

WASWINGION DC

a



@ ( ED 388 089

Occasional
Papers in
Bilingual
Education

Ii

SPRING
(1995

AZ34O

IMPLEMENTING BILINGUAL PROGRAMS
IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS

Toni Griego-Jones

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).”

Zz

BEST COPY AVAILABLE



instruction. [cis possible co recruit and certify

bilingual people as teachers, but it takes time. Ie

is even possible for monolingual reachers to

develop proficiency in English or Spanish but
that also takes time and intense study to accom-

thatisal

plish. The dual language proficieney ’
component of bilingual programs is a time and

labor intensive ingredient nor present in most

other reform efforts. Because it is unique, it is
not always understood by those outside of bilin-
gual programs and districts tend to abandon
elforts t adequately scaff’ programy by relying

s. A broader

on measures like emergeney licens
understanding on the pare of more district per-
sonnel. including superintendents and hoard
members. offactors like theneed to develop dual

language proficiency might help to obtain the

necessary time to integrate programs into the
system.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS

‘There are other factors to consider as we begin

planning strategies to reorient bilingual pro-
grant implementation and involve more district
personnel and resources. The size of the pro-
gram. that is, numbers of students in the bilin-

gual program, numbers of schools, numbers of

bilingual reaching and administrative seatl’ are
factors that will affect the level and need for
district support. For example, the relative per=
centage of bilingual students to the rest of the

student population will make a difference in the

awareness and actirudes of all personnel. tn
districts with very large numbers, non-bilingual
personnelare likelTM to beaware of programs, but
autention to implementation “n many of the
larger districts has a history of controversy that
forestalls support, In districts with very small

numbers on the other hand, the programs may

suller from the opposite problem. a lack of

4
t

attention, that may make it equally diflicule 10
secure resources. In onecase, planning may have

toatiend v- overcoming preconceived ideas: in

the other. planning may have to educate from

the beginning,

The impetus or reason for implementing or

expanding the bilingual program wil also have
implications for its design and implementation.

For example, programs resulting from court

orders may have stronger backingand resources.
but they may also have ahistory of binemess and
resistance. The past history of bilingual pro-
grams in the district will have an effect on how
to approach implementation of new programs
or expansion of old ones. Auitudes of hostility
of mistrust are considerations that have poten-
tial for foiling the sueceysful implementation of
programs. “Therefore, planning hay to include
attention tohow to turn hostileattitadesaround.
For example. implementation might have w
include conflict resolution, team building, and

ua

ning in cooperative learning before it can

attend to classroom issues.

Another consideration is that individual dis.
triets and schools have distinet needs and con-
texts, In education we have often tried to gener-

alive, to disseminate effe

tive practices.
pretending that what works in one place will
work in another, Research is beginning to show
that, in fact, the individual contests of reform
are perhaps the most important considerations

in its implementation. Many of the more eff

tive reform efforts of the 1980s, for example.

‘were implemented in suburban areas with mi

le class. non-minority students and then “ap-

plied” to urban contexts that have very different
students and resources. What worked in one

situation did not necessarily work in another.



12

Development Associates, Ine. (1993), Special
issues anualysis center: Literature review of feder-
sally fended studies related to LEP studens, final

» Author.

analytic report. Atlington. \
Fullan, M. (1990), The meant
change, New Yor

eof educational

» Teachers College Press.

Ginsburg, A. (1992). Improving bilingual edu-

cation programs through evaluation. In Pro-

1g of the second natianal research symposium
on limited Fuglish proficient studlesn issues: Focus
on evaluation and measurement (pp. 31-42)
Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, Office of Bilingual Education and
Minority Languages Affairs.

(1990), “School district

Griego-Jones,

personnel’s perceptions of change.” Journal af”

School Re

Lucas. 1

search and Information, 8 (V). 33-38
Katz, A. and Ramage. K. (1992)
sof

tiventy ease stabs, Oakland. CA: ARCA

Successfidl capacity building: An analy

sociates.

Martin. |

(1992), The sehoal home. Cam-

+ Harvard Universiey Press.

bridg

Mertens. ].. Bateman, P.. and Tallmadge.
(1990), Deseriptire craluations of the wansi-
ion program far refugee children and the
emergency immigrant education program:
Data collection, sampling and anahsis plan.
Washington, DC: Cosmos Corporavion

Nava. b.. Reisner, E., Douglas. D.. Johnson, D..
Morales. M.. Tallmadge. ¢
(1984), Descriptive analysis of tite \1-fierded

nd Gadsden. V.

statecducationagencyactivities, Volume Il: Nine

case studies, Arlington, VA: SRA Technolo

Ovando. C..

« Policy Studies Awociates.

and Collier, V. 1985), Bilingual

und ES} classrooms: Teaching in multicultural
cwutexts, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pen,

AL U986). Dupleentation procedures 11

balingual edtuanon: The differences berween

T. GRIEGO-JONES:

success and failure, Paper presented at the
Conference of the National Awociation ot
Bilingual Education, Chicago, IL.

Prager. K. (1991, Bal. “Hidden supports in

school restructuring

Schouls, Rep. No

Issues in’ Restrucinving

Lops ls pp. 12-15. Madi-
soa, WE Center on Organization and Re-
structuring of Schools.

Ramirez. J.. Yuen. S.. and Ramey, D. (1999).

Executive suminary: Final report of the langi-

tudinal study of structured

English immersion
strategy earlyeexit and late-exit transitional

bilinguutl education programs for languurge-

minority children. San Maweo. CA: Aguirre
International.

aon. LIS. The endive of the shoul and the

problen: of change. Boston: Allyn. and Bacon,
Schorr. L. (1989), Within en reach, New
York: Doubleday.

Vallmadge. G.. Lam. ‘T.. and Gamel. N,
(1987). Ep

Juation of bilingual education

programs far language-minority, limited Eu-

lish proficiency students: A status report with
recommendations far future development

RMC

(Phase 1 Report), Mountain View, CA

search Corporation

Deparement of Education, 994), An

idea book: Implementing schoolwide project.
Washington, DC: Author.

Valdivieso. R. (I991). Arrisk students: His:
panic stadents and reform. In K. Kershner
and J. Connolly (Eds.). At-risk students and
school 9
search for Better Schools,

Willig. ¢

studies on the effectiveness of bilingual educa-

moturing. Philadelphia, PA: Re-

. (1985), "A meta-analysis of selected

tion.” Rericte of Fdrcational Research, 55 (31,
269-317.

bee
ong