An Open Letter to Teacher Educators


The following is a response to the passage of 227 that Dr. Jill Kerper Mora sent to her
fellow teacher educators at San Diego State University.

Dr Kerper Mora is Assistant Professor of Teacher Education, Cross cultural Language and
Academic Development Specialist, with the College of Education at San Diego
State University.

Dear Colleagues,

With the passage of Proposition 227, public education in California has
suffered a set-back in our attempts to improve education for over 1.4
million students classified as limited in English proficiency (LEP). It is a
set-back because in recent years we have made progress toward converting the
compensatory education models of instruction for language minority students
based on theories of linguistic, academic and cultural deficits into
additive and enrichment models that view bilingualism as an asset to be
nurtured and developed. This has been accomplished through well implemented
dual immersion and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs that
are achieving significant results in academic achievement and language
learning for thousands of students. Many exemplary programs, such as the one
in the Calexico Unified School District, have documented results that have
been researched by scholars and educators to establish the characteristics
that make these programs successful.

Unfortunately, the majority of voters have rejected the notion of bilingual
education by a vote of 61% to 39%. They have approved a law that, when
enforced, would mandate a uniform program for LEP students called "sheltered
immersion" lasting normally one year in which students will be taught
"overwhelmingly" in English. A challenge to the constitutionality of this
law was filed on June 3, including a petition for an injunction against
implementation of the law until the legal issues are resolved. If the law
becomes enforceable, it would require that such successful bilingual
programs as the Calexico school district's be dismantled and "sheltered
immersion" put in their place.

Since I have been active in keeping you informed about the implications of
Proposition 227, I am writing this reaction to its passage with my analysis
of what this all means to us as teacher educators. Also, those of us who are
involved in school administration should be informed about the enormous
challenges of implementing new state mandates for the programs that serve
25% of the student population in our public schools.

First of all, we must define the term "sheltered English immersion" to
understand what it is, and what it is not. The definition of sheltered
immersion provided in Proposition 227 is vague and bears little relationship
to what language minority educators refer to as the immersion model of
second language education. Immersion programs, which are implemented
extensively in Canada, are actually bilingual programs designed for students
who are adding a second language in order to become bilingual. In the
Canadian programs, for example, native English speakers enroll to learn
French. Immersion classrooms are taught by highly trained language teachers
who are proficient in the native language of their students. These teachers
are carefully selected based on their skills and their commitment to the
immersion model. They use strategies whereby they interpret input from
students into the second language, and provide content instruction that is
modified for students' comprehension and gradual acquisition of
second-language proficiency. Students are usually placed in immersion
programs on a voluntary basis by their parents because they value
bilingualism as a practical and academic ability that will enhance their
children's opportunities culturally and professionally in the long range.

Immersion programs are no panacea for learning a second language. The
programs have attracted a rather homogeneous group of middle-class students
and have not adapted well to greater cultural and linguistic diversity in
enrollments. Drop-out rates from immersion programs are high, with attrition
rates primary due to students' academic or behavioral problems ranging from
43% to 68% (Cummins, 1995). Many children do not fare well in immersion
programs, with children of lower ability levels performing less well than
students of higher ability.

We must analyze the differences between immersion programs designed to
promote bilingualism and the one-year sheltered immersion program for LEP
students in California. Prop 227 does not require that the teachers in
these classrooms have any specialized training in language teaching or
working with language minority students. Nor does the law require that these
teachers be bilingual. In other words, neither a BCLAD nor a CLAD credential
would be required to teach in an immersion classroom. Students who leave
these classrooms most likely will not acquire enough proficiency in English
to be able to keep up with regular content in the mainstream classrooms,
where teachers will also not be required to have any specialized training.

In other words, as a mandatory state requirement for placement in any public
school classroom with language minority students, the CLAD credential would
also be eliminated. However, the competencies acquired through B/CLAD
training will be even more essential for ALL California teachers, since the
likelihood of having LEP students in any classroom at any grade level is
very high. The school district's recognize this fact, and in spite of the
lack of requirements for these credentials, they will continue to seek
teachers who possess these skills.

As a CLAD specialist, it is my belief that the training now in place for the
teachers who would be assigned to the immersion classrooms is inadequate.
These assignments would require a teacher who is highly skilled in second
language teaching methodologies and in literacy and content-area instruction
as well. The CLAD courses now in place are not designed to prepare teachers
for this type of assignment. Nor do I believe that most mainstream teachers
are adequately prepared for literacy and content-area instruction with large
numbers of students with limited proficiency. The focus of teacher training
for the CLAD has been based on the assumption that most students who need
bilingual instruction would be in bilingual classrooms. The role and
responsibility of the CLAD teacher would be for those students who are
prepared with literacy skills in their native language to make the
transition into English. These assumptions would no longer hold true under
the provisions of 227. Consequently, I believe that we must begin
discussions of the implications that enforcement of this law might have for
our teacher education programs.

I ask also that we all be both compassionate and patient with the BCLAD and
CLAD specialists among our ranks, since we are going through a difficult
period of grief and confusion. I know I speak for many of my colleagues in
thanking you for the support you have extended during the campaign and for
your continued efforts as we work as a team to prepare teachers for
California's classrooms of tomorrow.

Cited Reference

Cummins, J. (1995). The European Schools Model in relation to French
Immersion Programs in Canada. In Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (Ed.)
Multilingualism for all. The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinker, pp. 159 167.


Jill Kerper Mora
San Diego State University
School of Teacher Education NE 92
San Diego, CA 92182-1153
Office 619 594-6110
FAX 619 594-7828