Analysis of READ Report (Clark, 1999)

An Analysis of the READ Institute Report:
Proposition 227 Implementation
in Five California School Districts

Click here for a road map to effective English language development instruction.

The READ Institute published a report by Kevin Clark (1999) on five California school districts' implementation of Proposition 227. READ is the acronym for the Institute for Research in English Acquisition and Development. The districts included in the study are Orange Unified, Delano Union, Atwater, Ceres & Riverdale. The stated purpose of the report is to describe the significant issues faced by these districts in dismantling their bilingual programs and establishing immersion programs to conform to the new law. The report also provides a description of the common evaluation design created by the five districts to track students' growth in English and to present some preliminary student achievement data. The document includes five pages of graphs describing data from Orange, Atwater and Delano, which Stephen Krashen and Jeff McQuillan have analyzed in detail. Click here to see the article on-line: Structured Immersion Falls Short of Expectations.

The purpose of this analysis of the READ Institute report is to point out ways in which bilingual education is mis-characterized and used as a straw man to justify some extreme actions taken under the Proposition 227. Although administrative decisions regarding program implementation taken by these school districts may be congruent with the law, it is questionable whether these features of the immersion program will produce the desired long term results for language minority students and their parents.

My intention is also, quite frankly, to defend teacher education from the attacks found throughout this document. These criticisms are attempts to discredit Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) credential requirements and the teacher educators and practicing teachers who design these programs and teach courses for prospective teachers of the students who are the subject of Proposition 227. The false and misleading statements regarding teacher training also reflect on the integrity and effectiveness of SB 1969 trainers whose programs are certified by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Legislation mandating this training for teachers of language minority students throughout the state was supported by the California Teachers Association, who was also involved in the design of the training (CTA, 1998). Currently, 32% of California's teachers are CLAD credential holders (California Department of Education Language Census Report, 1998-99).

I also offer this analysis to provoke thought regarding the responsibilities for instructing English language learners that are thrust upon under-prepared teachers who may in fact be working valiantly to comply with district mandates, but without the benefit of collaboration with their bilingual (BCLAD) credentialed colleagues. The bilingual teachers in these school districts appear to have been relegated to a subservient role in which their linguistic skills and pedagogical expertise are demeaned and degraded. I wish to give these teachers a voice to express their views and concerns regarding implementation of Proposition 227, so that it does not appear that they are happily going along with the program in these districts, when in fact they are subject to intimidation and coercion. I invite them to tell their stories as well.

Having made clear my intentions, let us reason together over this report. First of all, it is interesting to note the demographics of these five school districts. According to the descriptions provided by Clark, the largest percentage of limited English proficient students in the total school population is 49% in Delano, with Ceres showing a 10% LEP population.

These demographic characteristics and their impact on students access to linguistic input are important to keep in mind because Clark claims that the implementation procedures and models of instruction are widely generalizable throughout the state. This is yet another example of the "one-size-fits-all" mentality. Much of the plan for "clustering" students, with planned periods of "structured mixing" to provide contact with native English speakers, to promote English language acquisition simply won't work in predominantly Latino districts and schools. School districts that have predominantly Spanish speaking limited English proficient students, such as National City, San Ysidro, and Calexico may have only a small percentage of native-English speakers among the school-age population. Even within school districts, many schools may be populated by students who are linguistically homogeneous but who have very little contact with native-English speaking peers because of patterns of neighborhood segregation.

The demographics are also important to consider in looking at assessment results. No socio-economic statistics were provided in this report, such as average family income, number of students on reduced lunch, or unemployment rates in the areas. These data are important in evaluating the feasibility of these program models, but also as a way of determining whether a particular group of students is "beating the odds" or if the odds are already in favor of their rapid assimilation and long term academic achievement. We must be wary of calling programs or public policies a success unless there is evidence that they address persistent achievement gaps between the privileged and less privileged in our society.

Clark begins the READ Institute report with a description of the compliance options facing school districts posed by passage of Proposition 227, heralding newspaper reports that "...publicized celebrations of common sense prevailing over ideology..." This is to clearly delineate the combatants who are pitted against each other throughout the document. Clark leads us in a"...re-thinking and re-conceptualization of how to educate today's limited English proficient students." Clark identifies three significant issues in the implementation of English immersion programs:

The first section of "Defining terms" has as the first bullet a subsection titled "Bilingual good--Immersion bad." On one side is "bilingual ideology" and on the other is "immersion," each with their respective allies. Clark claims that the "bilingual ideology" is supported by the California Department of Education and by implication, teacher education programs that have used a "prescribed ideological syllabus" to teach that bilingual education in all its forms was good.

Clark reports that Orange Unified Assistant Superintendent Neil McKinnon tangled regularly with the Department of Education over immersion. McKinnon stated that the California Department of Education (CDE) was "....vested in it [bilingual education] and thought it was the only way to go. Underlying that was an arrogance that they could make people do it how they wanted it done." On the other side are the administrators of the five school districts who rejected the "bilingual ideology" and embraced immersion because "...in our heart of hearts, the immersion idea always made sense" (p. 5). Clark would have us believe that there is no trace of arrogance among the heart-felt immersion advocates, even though they seek to enforce a law that allows only one way of educating language minority students.

Clark points a finger at the Department of Education and teacher educators, accusing them of being blind followers of Stephen Krashen and Jim Cummins who were "...the only two linguists most [teachers] had heard of." Now we are offered up Christine Rossell and Rosalie Pedalino Porter as their replacements. However, the document is permeated with terminology, second language learning theories, and instructional methodologies based on Krashen's and Cummins' work, with no references to either cited.

Clark's definition is this: "English immersion programs require a special curriculum, texts, and trained teachers to provide English language instruction and subject matter at the same time--it is a program designed for English language learners" (p. 4). The purpose of this two-page discussion appears to be to set up the new paradigm, "Immersion good-Bilingual bad," to replace the previous belief system. Clark attempts to make several points with his portrayal of structured English immersion (SEI) and the way it has been implemented in the five school districts. I summarize these as follows:

1. SEI has been the victim of a deliberate and coordinated plot to suppress it through mass training efforts that undermine the presentation of its second language teaching principles.

First, we must question to what extent "immersion" education has been suppressed or denied and whether teacher education and state-mandated CLAD training have been part of the plot. This claim flies in the face of the numbers of students in various types of programs before passage of Proposition 227 in June 1998. We must remember that only 30% of all the state's 1.4 million second-language (L2) students were in programs labeled "bilingual education" where they received instruction in their native language. The other 70% of programs serving language minority students were described by teachings methods rather than program labels such as ELD and SDAIE, or they received no specialized instruction at all. Usually, students who were in classrooms with a CLAD credentialed teacher were assumed to be getting ELD and SDAIE instruction. There was no policy that prevented or discouraged school districts from implementing coherent programs for students, either bilingual programs or English-only programs where bilingual teachers were unavailable. On the contrary, federal law requires that language minority students have access to an effective and meaningful education that helps to overcome any barriers to learning due to their English language proficiency.

Many school districts have not articulated a well-defined plan for educating their language minority students for a variety of reasons, including racism and prejudice that lead them to ignore and neglect these students. Other reasons are lack of educational expertise, lack of financial and staff resources, or lack of political will and voice for language minority parents to demand higher quality education for their children. Proposition 227 may ameliorate these negative conditions somewhat. However, the former policies and laws regarding bilingual education are not an excuse for educational neglect and malpractice by officials charged with addressing the civil rights of language minorities to equal educational opportunities.

For example, at several points in the READ Institute report, Clark comments on the school district's lack of information and assessment data regarding their language minority students before passage of Proposition 227. He remarks how district administrators were unaware of how much English language development instruction was going on in their bilingual classrooms. One must ask why these data were not being collected and used to improve opportunities for LEP students. In other words, who was minding the store? Bilingual education cannot be blamed for a lack of commitment to a minority population by district governance bodies and administrators.

Regarding the training and certification mandates from the state, the new requirements for the CLAD credential instituted by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) in 1992 have produced a coherent and comprehensive program for preparing teachers for classrooms with limited English proficient (LEP) students. These requirements include coursework in second language (L2) acquisition theory, L2 teaching methods including literacy and content-area instruction and adaptations for language minority students, models of bilingual education, the legal history of bilingual education, and current issues surrounding instruction of limited English proficient students (See Dr. Mora's syllabi for PLC 914 and ED 516). The charge that "immersion" has been undermined, denigrated or neglected in these programs is unfounded. In fact, Clark only cites himself to support these claims.

The term "immersion" has been used properly by CLAD teacher educators to refer to immersion programs as a category within bilingual education. In their volume on international immersion education, Johnson and Swain (1997) state the following:

Clark includes a fleeting reference to Canadian French immersion for English speakers as "associated with" SEI, which neither affirms nor refutes the commonly held misconception that the term "immersion" used to describe a form of bilingual education either applies or does not. However, later on Clark's report states that the districts "turned to writings on European immersion programs for guidance" in designing their SEI models. This is the dilemma of SEI, which in order to be effective must be based on sound principles of second-language acquisition. However, in order for SEI programs to be "politically correct" following passage of Proposition 227 and faithful to its proponents' desires, SEI teachers are expected to reject the founding principles of bilingual education.

Clearly, SEI is not immersion as language educators understand the term. The features of immersion Johnson and Swain refer to here include "overt support exists for L1"; "the program aims for additive bilingualism" and "the teachers are bilingual." Clearly, two of these features do not apply at all to the subtractive model employed by the school districts in Clark's study. The third characteristic, assignment of only bilingual teachers to immersion classroom, may apply in some cases where school districts have placed bilingual credentialed teachers in SEI classrooms. However, in the absence of support for L1 and additive bilingualism and with severe restrictions on their use of L1, these teachers perform a much different role than true "immersion" teachers.

The point I wish to make here is that the charge that teacher education programs have attacked or suppressed immersion is simply false. Mind you, many of us in CLAD programs who teach the required second-language acquisition and ELD/SDAIE methods courses for the credential make no bones about our support for bilingual education. However, I dare to say that we had not been inclined to pit something called "immersion" against something called "bilingual education" because we see them as contradictory or incompatible. The creation of this dichotomy was taken on by Gloria Matta Tuchman and Ron Unz to serve their own political goals.

Which leads me to the next leg of the journey through the READ Institute study--Primary language instruction. In a two page discussion and a twelve cell chart, Clark attacks several alleged hypotheses behind the use of a child's native language as a medium of instruction: It is necessary to maintain and build self-esteem. It "ensures" access to the core curriculum. More of it equals more English learning. English learning is dependent on transfer of information learned from it, etc. He contrasts these "false principles" with the "true principles" of English immersion: time-on-task in English, simultaneous learning of language and content; maximizing the amount of understandable instruction in the new language; English actively taught using school subjects as the focus; and success in the new language building confidence for future learning.

Compare these principles with the following theories proposed by Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell (1983): the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the comprehensible input hypothesis and the i+1 theory, the communicative goals of instruction, the low affective filter hypothesis. In actuality, the methodology titled sheltered subject matter teaching was invented by Stephen Krashen. Professor Krashen's model was inspired by Canadian immersion, while also recognizing the differences between bilingual programs in Canada and English-only instruction for language minority students in the United States. Krashen also participated in the first study showing the success of sheltered immersion, in an article that won the Pimsleur award for best published paper of the year (ACTFL - American Council of Foreign Language Teachers). Sheltered instruction was widely supported by Professor Krashen and others as transition from first language to mainstream as part of gradual exit plan. Krashen and others also enthusiastically support natural approach/TPR followed by sheltered as part of bilingual programs, and of course, as the method of choice when primary language instruction is not possible. Krashen reviewed the considerable evidence supporting the effectiveness of sheltered instruction in a 1991 paper, showing its success with literate students at the intermediate level.

Clark would have us believe that before the Proposition 227 version of immersion came along, none of these "principles" were translated into a coherent program for English language learners. He claims that this lack of coherence was due to the fact that educators supported the use of students' primary language and teachers were trained to believe that these principles comprised bilingual education. By pitting "bilingual ideology" against the supposed "common sense" behind "immersion," Clark intends to reinforce public prejudice and affirm the power of monolingual SEI educators as the sole decision-makers in how language minority students should be educated. There are frequent references in the document to how bilingual teachers are excluded or simply overpowered in decision-making processes during the implementation of Proposition 227. This certainly was the intention of the proponents of the law, hence the inclusion of the liability lawsuits provision. For instance, Clark states that in Ceres "...the Spanish-speaking teachers demanded the right to use Spanish as part of their instruction. After protracted debate, the district decided to adopt a 100 percent English language use policy for instructional purposes."

This is not where the demons of primary language instruction end, however. Clark describes in detail how Ceres and Atwater school districts created "English Language Use Policies" with descriptions of permissible uses of a child's primary language that are highly prescriptive and limiting. At one point he praises an unidentified high school that promulgates a policy that the use of Spanish had to be limited to 90 consecutive seconds. The premise is that teachers needed to be convinced that anything more than a minute and a half in the primary language could be considered instruction in Spanish, which was not needed to teach English. Clark explains that these policies are necessary because leaving the decisions up to teachers would be equivalent to "...effectively leaving open the option of continued primary language instruction."

One of the more interesting details of the document is the discussion of the merits and demerits of segregation of language minority students. The Principles Chart included a vague reference to a principle of primary language instruction that "[S]egregation of students is bad. It sends a message of shame to non-English-speaking students that they have to be taught alone for some period of the day." This statement, characterized as a "principle" of bilingual education, is especially confusing, in light of the recommendations Clark makes for segregating students for SEI. The discussion that follows outlines key components of the immersion program and describes in detail how children are to be segregated by language levels for most of the day, with provisions for "structured mixing" for art, music, P.E. and hands-on science.

The immersion advocates' objection to any segregation of students into homogeneous language groups for bilingual education was that it would invariably last for more than one year. This was contrasted with the "advantages" of immersion segregation, which include:

Of course, there was no explanation in the READ report of how these advantages do not accrue equally in homogeneous L1 groups, whether these exist by design or by natural processes in segregated neighborhoods and schools. Nor is there any discussion of how integration with native English speakers is to be accomplished for SEI students in schools where there are few English speakers enrolled, with whom "structured mixing" can occur. These omissions suggest either a na�vet� or a deliberate blindness to the demographic realities of many California schools and the potentially damaging effects of separating beginning English learners from their more proficient peers for one year or longer for SEI instruction. These SEI classrooms are a pretext for tracking language minority students within schools unless and until they can "make the grade" in English enough to be permitted access to English speakers. The insidiousness of this type of segregation by language level should be a cause for grave concern among civil rights advocates.

The remainder of the READ report contains a description of how the five school districts fended off parents who wanted an alternative program, as permitted and even required, under Proposition 227. A portion is dedicated to explaining how teachers were trained, without the help of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing or teacher educators (but apparently using materials developed by Stephen Krashen and methods based on the theories and principles of Jim Cummins.) There are regular complaints about "...the steady barrage of press coverage quoting immersion foes and bilingual advocates..." with dire predictions about how students are actually doing in the five districts. For this report, I once again direct you to Dr. Krashen's and Dr. McQuillan's analysis of the data presented by the school districts themselves posted on the internet: Structured Immersion Falls Short of Expectations.

I take note of the pervasive and positive influence of Stephen Krashen and Jim Cummins, who so clearly articulated for us the principles of second language acquisition that guide our practice and preparation of teachers for language minority student. During his scholarly career, Professor Krashen has authored over 250 papers and books on second-language acquisition, language teaching and literacy instruction. The READ Institute may attack these scholars, rephrase their theories, debase the strategies and methods they originated, but they can't recommend anything better.

The READ Institute report serves to illuminate the measures taken by a few school districts to implement Proposition 227 in conformity with a strict interpretation of the law. Clark documents some preliminary evaluation results of implementation efforts. However, the long-range effects of English-only policies and severe restrictions on the use of language minority students' primary language are yet to be determined. The larger questions remain:

None of these are questions that can be ignored for long by policymakers. It is at our peril that we settle for short term simplistic solutions to complex societal and educational problems.

The bilingual education debate will continue, with the final winners and losers determined by the extent of hatred and divisiveness sown by combatants in a political struggle for power and domination. As a bilingual educator, I offer this analysis of others' position papers and research data in the hope that honesty and integrity will prevail toward collaboration and shared decision making for the improvement of educational opportunities and equity for language minority students.

California Teachers Association (1998). SB 1969 solution in hand. California Educator 2 (6), 20-21.

Clark, K. (1999). From primary language instruction to English immersion: How five California districts made the switch. Washington, DC: READ (Institute for Research in English Acquisition and Development).

Edwards, H., Wesche, M., Krashen, S., Clement, R., and Kruidenier, B. 1984. Second language acquisition through a subject-matter learning: A study of sheltered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review 41: 268-282.

Johnson, R.K., & Swain, M. (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1991). Sheltered subject matter teaching. Cross Currents 18: 183-188. Reprinted in J. Oller (Ed.) Methods That Work. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. pp. 143-148.

Krashen, Stephen D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: The Alemany Press.

Return toDr. Mora's Home Page	MoraModules Index
PLC 915 Syllabus	ED 516 Syllabus
Analysis of READ Commentary on Role of Regulators	Debunking English-only
Philosophical Assumptions of Bilingual Education vs. English-only	Patterns of Prejudice & Intergroup Conflict in the Bilingual Education Debate
Prop. 227's Second Anniversary: Triumph or Travesty?	California's Demographic Changes: Opportunity & Challenges
How Long Does It Take to Reach English Proficiency?	The Age of Enlightenment: A Response to Porter
Proposition 227: A Public Policy Failure	A Road Map to the Bilingual Education Debate
Accountability FOR and TO Language Minority Students	New Role of Advocacy for Language Minority Students