In trying to learn about Princeton's Elementary Bilingual Education program we encountered both enthusiasm and difficulty. We found that the two teachers and the one administrator directly involved with this program were extremely open, enthusiastic, and willing to share their information through taped interview sessions. The administrator also willingly volunteered documents, found in the appendix of this paper, from her office on bilingual education. These interviews provided much of our factual information about the program in Princeton as well as guiding us towards important issues playing a role in bilingual education, like politics and legislation.
We went to our interviews with a list of questions, however, we found that the interviewees often would answer two or three questions for every one that we asked. For this reason, we did not adhere strictly to any order and we encouraged elaboration on any point which the interviewee felt was important. The lists of questions we used are located in appendix I, however, generally we received opinions and impressions rather than concise objective answers. We used these impressions and opinions in trying to construct a mental model of what the program was like.
Much of our historical information came from library research on the general topic of bilingual education, while our information about the political climate in Princeton came from our interviews and research in local Princeton newspapers. Unfortunately, we were not comfortable enough as a group with our fluency in Spanish, so we did not interview any families or students. Furthermore, we wished to avoid the complications of accessing students through the school.
Bilingual education first appeared in the national arena in 1968 as a small, $7.5 million federal program called the "Bilingual Education Act", which was initiated primarily for Mexican-American children. A leading sponsor of the law, Democratic Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough, stated that the intent was "to make children fully literate in English" and "not to make the mother tongue dominant." Other supporters of the act claimed that the act was designed to allow students with language barriers equal access to the education system.
Recently, the advent of a Republican majority in Congress has resulted in a spate of bills aimed at promoting the English-only movement. Presently, none have been passed, but measures intending to require all official government business to be conducted in English have garnered significant support. Tied to these legislative efforts are less popular bills specifically aimed at completely eliminating, or at least reducing the funding for federally supported bilingual education programs.
Criticism of bilingual education in Congress has especially focused on the point that bilingual education has evolved into a way to preserve diverse culture and customs, instead of fulfilling its initial purpose of providing a transition from native language to English. The Roth Amendment, which would eliminate mandates for all bilingual education programs and federal funding for such programs, did not pass, but similar legislation is currently being debated in Congress. Eliminating bilingual education would be a way of preserving the unity of America by requiring immigrants to learn English as quickly as possible, thereby facilitating assimilation. This theory relies upon the belief that a nation's unity is directly related to the language spoken by its citizens.
Another level of debate, among educators, addresses the benefits and burdens of bilingual education. Supporters of bilingual education argue that language acquisition is additive, and not detrimental; learning in Spanish does not hinder learning English. Another factor emphasized is the failure of immediate English instruction because it "promotes a discontinuity in a child's intellectual development." Promoters of bilingual education claim linguistic proof that children learn best and learn a second language best after creating a solid foundation in their first language. James Lyon, executive director of the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) in Washington, D.C. says that "without bilingual education, students are disproportionately sent to special education classes or held back because they cannot complete the academic requirements." Other educators assert that culture has a strong role to play in the success of education. Bilingual education is a way of instilling pride in a child's native language and in turn, culture. Furthermore, supporters argue that bilingual children have an additional set of language skills which will provide them an advantage when they enter future job markets.
Opponents of bilingual education deny that becoming fully proficient in a new language requires literacy and proficiency in the native language. In fact, critics point out that this theory was formed after the institutionalization of bilingual education. As one writer describes it, bilingual education as a concept "is more a rationalization than a legitimate educational theory." Others object to the cultural arguments, rejecting the correlation between self esteem and achievement.
Theory aside, the debate concerning placement in the bilingual programs is also highly controversial. Some parents want the option to withhold their children from bilingual programs, believing in immersion as the best way to acquire English. Other times, administrators who have not adequately ascertained a child's level of language proficiency place the child by last name, assuming that they need bilingual instruction. Many of these problems are caused by state mandates encouraging schools to become overzealous in finding children to teach in their native language.
The problems associated with bilingual education do not end after the initial placement. Even after students are English proficient, administrators may still refuse to enroll them in mainstream classes. In the end, some students lack adequate skills in either English or Spanish. Generally, problems tend to arise when students in need of bilingual education are placed into inappropriate programs for their abilities.
Ultimately, the debate over education policy occurs on a state
level. Bilingual education made its debut in New Jersey politics
in 1974 when a law (see appendix A) passed, mandating that a district
that contains twenty LEP (Limited English Proficient) students
who share a native language between kindergarten and twelfth grade,
must provide first language instruction. The law allows but
discourages the doubling up of grades when teaching at grade level
is impractical. Additionally, if there are ten or more students
who share a native language across the district, then an ESL (English
as a Second Language) program must be provided. Bilingual education
uses native language to teach core material, whereas ESL classes
uses some native language to teach English skills. However, ESL
instruction varies widely depending on the skills of students
and the aims of the program. The 1974 New Jersey law creates
some logistical and financial difficulties because twenty children
spanned over 12 grade levels may result in only one or two children
requiring first language instruction at each grade level.
Recently, the New Jersey debate over bilingual education has
become more complicated. The summer before the 1996-1997 school
year, the New Jersey State Legislature amended the original state
bilingual education law by passing the "Parent Consent Law"
(see appendix A & B). The "Parent Consent Law"
gave parents the right to reject bilingual education for their
children, even against the school's advice. Interestingly, the
advent of the "Parent Consent Law" was influenced and
supported by a member of the Princeton Board of Education.
Princeton
Princeton public schools have both a bilingual program as well as an ESL program as a result of the 1974 legislation. Bilingual education began in Princeton during the 1986-87 school year when the district's thinly spread, but growing, Spanish speaking student population triggered the law's attention. During that school year, bilingual instruction existed only at Community Park Elementary School, a school located in the downtown district of Princeton off Witherspoon Street. Dr. Germand, the current bilingual coordinator at Johnson Park Elementary, arranged the new program so that the children would miss as little of their mainstream programs and classes as possible. To achieve this goal, the children would come before school, miss lunch, and miss opening exercises in order to make time for the native language instruction that the children required in addition to their normal class load. This format required a "one-room school house arrangement" where all grade levels convened at once to receive bilingual instruction. Over the years, the program evolved to the current pull-out format where students leave their mainstream classes to receive their bilingual education.
One of the most obvious objections to bilingual education both in Princeton and anywhere else is the strain that the additional program places on school budgets. In Princeton, however, the necessary budget for the bilingual and ESL programs is lean and straight forward. The funding is a combination of state funds based on Princeton's LEP count and local funds from sources. Therefore, there is no differentiation between bilingual and ESL programs in terms of the allocations of funds. According to Dr. Cheryl Simone, Assistant Superintendent of Princeton Schools and state liaison for bilingual education, funding for bilingual education is relatively secure because the state funds are guarded by the high numbers of ESL students who speak various languages in the district. She also expressed her confidence in the security of local funding by saying, "there is a commitment from the school board to service the minority students, students who are Limited English Proficient."
A more specific breakdown of funding for Princeton Regional Schools is provided Table 1. The majority of the funding goes toward teachers' salaries, and local funding is nearly twice that of state funding. Princeton receives no federal funding for its bilingual/ESL education program.
| Budget Category |
|
|
|
| INSTRUCTION | |||
| Salaries of Teachers | |||
| Other Salaries for Instruction | |||
| General Supplies | |||
| SUPPORT SERVICES | |||
| Salaries of Supervisors of Instruction | |||
| Personal Services of Employee Benefits | |||
| TOTAL COSTS |
Princeton Regional Schools
In order to form a more complete picture of the elementary schools in relation to the Princeton community, we drove through the four elementary school districts, noting their adjacent grounds, the school buildings, and additional observations. For a detailed map of the Princeton elementary school attendance zones see appendix D.
About one mile to the east of Princeton University, Riverside is the elementary school that services children of university faculty. On route to Riverside, we noticed well kept and landscaped houses ranging from upper-middle-class to upper-class in affordability. Everything in the immediate area consisted of residential housing. On the sides of the roads there were two signs marking the area as a "drug-free school zone." The school grounds had soccer fields on two sides and a playground, as well as a small chain link fence stretching around the perimeter. The school itself looked like a small high school built anywhere from the 1960s to the 1970s.
Littlebrook Elementary is just a two minute drive to the north of Riverside Elementary and services most of the families involved with the Institute for Advanced Studies. On the way to Littlebrook, "drug-free school zone" signs were also well-placed. The area around Littlebrook was somewhat more rural with rougher and smaller roads. The houses were more spread out and the area generally looked less developed. Littlebrook itself looked like the stereotypical model of an elementary school, with tiles of animals on the outside walls. The surrounding grounds, although containing a playground and a field, were not as expansive as Riverside's. Its seclusion eliminated the need for a fence. Our general observation of Littlebrook was that it was hidden in the woods, a school difficult to find without good directions.
Community Park Elementary is located just north of Princeton University, right above downtown Princeton and Nassau Street. In coming to Community Park, we encountered significantly more traffic there than at the two previous schools, signaling its central location. The area surrounding Community Park featured older, smaller, and somewhat run-down houses spaced very close together. The surrounding area also contained commercial buildings ranging from restaurants to doctors' offices. In fact, Community Park is right in the shadow of the mammoth Princeton Medical Center. Just up the road from the school are the Princeton Recreational Complex and the main administrative offices of the Princeton Regional Schools. The school itself is a large two story building, giving the impression of a miniature corporate park. Educational symbols, such as Greek, Roman, and Arabic symbols, adorned the tops of the walls. There was a large playground in the back of the school as well as expansive soccer fields, tennis courts, and basketball courts. While driving by, we noticed two Latino males in their twenties playing basketball. A park shares the surrounding grounds, hence the name "Community Park." Overall, Community Park's proximity to Nassau Street and downtown Princeton make it more accessible.
Johnson Park Elementary is located northwest of Princeton University and west of Community Park Elementary. The area surrounding Johnson Park was significantly more hilly and rural than other areas of Princeton, lending to its being called "the sticks." In route to Johnson Park, we saw deer warning signs, deer, a Montessori School, Princeton Day School, Stuart Country Day School, a country club, a gated community, and a private estate. The traffic was heavy on the main roads, but upon turning into smaller roads, the traffic disappeared. Gravel roads were common in this clearly upper-class area. The houses were large and spread out. However, in stark contrast to the mansions, occasional abandoned houses added to the country-like, picturesque nature of the area. Secluded from Rosedale Road, a relatively busy thoroughfare, Johnson Park has a quarter mile long two-lane driveway. The school buildings appeared modern compared to the other elementary schools. A new playground and soccer field nestled in the woods comprised the immediate grounds. We wondered about the length and time the bus routes take in getting to Johnson Park.
Besides the four elementary schools, the Princeton Regional School district also includes John Witherspoon Middle School and Princeton High School.
Princeton is both plagued and blessed by the unique character of its population. The population is extremely mobile with professors visiting the Institute for Advanced Studies, the Princeton Theological Seminary, and Princeton University. Therefore, children associated with these scholars move in and out of the school district. Princeton schools service up to forty-three languages mainly due to this highly educated and highly mobile population (see table 2). Some of the children moving in and out are only in Princeton schools for three months. Dr. Simone compared this degree of mobility to that of an inner city school. However, unlike the trends in an inner city school, these children are very well educated and can therefore pick up English and adjust to their new surroundings with relative ease.
| Total Number of Students | ||||||
| % of LEP | ||||||
| % English Speakers | ||||||
| % Russian Speakers | ||||||
| % French
Speakers | ||||||
| % Spanish Speakers | ||||||
| % Mandarin Speakers | ||||||
| % Cantonese Speakers | ||||||
| % Japanese
Speakers | ||||||
| % German Speakers | ||||||
| % Hebrew Speakers | ||||||
| % Creole
Speakers | ||||||
| % Italian
Speakers | ||||||
| % Dutch
Speakers | ||||||
| % Urdu
Speakers | ||||||
| % Korean
Speakers | ||||||
| % Speak Other Language |
In the 1996 school year there were a total of 3004 students residing in the Princeton School district between grades kindergarten and twelve. Of those students, 230 are "Hispanic", therefore Hispanic students comprise 7.7% of the school district, although not all of these Hispanic students are recent migrants. Focusing specifically on the elementary schools, there are 1420 children grades K-5 on the district's rolls, 7.6% of whom are Hispanic (108 students). This percentage is relatively high, suggesting that Hispanic children do represent a significant minority in the Princeton school system. 37% of all the Hispanic children (40 students) are enrolled in the bilingual education program.
The Structure of Bilingual Education in Princeton School District
Princeton's unique population has created Princeton-specific
bilingual education and ESL programs inside the school district.
At the head of the program is Dr. Simone, whose responsibilities
include writing all of the state paper work, acting as a state
liaison on any bilingual issue, supervising the bilingual educators,
and writing the bilingual educators' evaluations and observations.
The bilingual coordinators at each school have a free reign to
work within the specified guidelines set out by the school district
and state legislation.
There are three schools which have a bilingual education program using first language instruction: Johnson Park Elementary School, Community Park Elementary School, and John Witherspoon Middle School. Princeton High School does not have a bilingual education program in the traditional sense, but instead services students with a need for bilingual education through an alternative high intensity ESL program. In addition, all of the public schools in the district have an ESL program servicing many languages.
According to Princeton's Bilingual/ESL Three -Year Program Plan for 1996-1999, the most recent document for the State Department of Education, there were fifty students grades K-8 participating in the Spanish bilingual program, and seventy-two students grades K-12 participating in the ESL program in the fall of 1995.
| School |
|
|
| Johnson Park Elementary | ||
| Community Park Elementary | ||
| Littlebrook Elementary | ||
| Riverside Elementary | ||
| John Witherspoon Middle School | ||
| Princeton High School |
Program Curriculum
The program is structured differently according to the level of education, elementary, middle school, or high school. Both Community Park and Johnson Park have a partial bilingual program where the students are "pulled-out" of their mainstream English speaking classes and placed under the supervision of the bilingual coordinator for language arts and mathematics. The lack of students and resources to justify providing a full-time program has resulted in the partial bilingual program. However, in order to operate a partial program, the schools must obtain a waiver from the state of New Jersey. State regulations for partial bilingual education programs mandate ninety minutes of bilingual instruction per day in addition to 30 minutes of ESL instruction. Half of the bilingual instruction must be dedicated to language arts/ reading while the other half must be spent on math. Social studies and science instruction takes place in the mainstream classroom with the mainstream English speaking teacher. There are three bilingual educators at the elementary school level responsible for all of the bilingual instruction at Johnson Park and Community Park. Each school has a bilingual coordinator and the two schools share a third bilingual educator. Each school also has an aide to help with administrative details and to follow up on the primary instruction given by the bilingual educators.
John Witherspoon Middle School runs the bilingual program differently. One bilingual educator and one ESL teacher share the responsibilities of teaching each subject. The students are taught a subject by the bilingual educator with the aid of the ESL teacher. ESL and bilingual education students spend one class period per day in ESL and the bilingual students receive an additional two periods of bilingual instruction (one for math and one for language arts). Fewer students enrolled at the middle school allows for this alternate teaching arrangement.
Finally, Princeton High School's high intensity ESL program targets students who need bilingual education. These students receive two class periods a day of ESL instruction supplemented by transitional courses focusing on science, math, and social studies. The transitional courses are taught by a regular teacher with the translation help of a bilingual aide.
In addition to classroom education, the community has created programs to further assist Latino children. These programs are not associated with classroom learning, although it often becomes the place of a bilingual educator to inform students about these kinds of social work organizations, a role which mainstream teachers don't have to fill as frequently. The Mercer County Hispanic Association (MECHA), St. Paul's Church, through its One to One tutoring program, Princeton Young Achievers (PYA), and the local library, through its Springboard tutoring program, all provide services for Latino children that supplement the bilingual education they receive in school.
The goal of the elementary bilingual educator is to mainstream the children as quickly as possible without compromising their cognitive skills in English. As Dr. Germand mentioned, her classes are not meant to be a permanent method of instruction, but rather serve as a "transitional program" before mainstream classes. Children either exit the program through mainstreaming or by graduating from fifth grade and moving on to the middle school. There are several criteria, uniform across the two elementary schools, for exiting the bilingual program and entering a full time mainstream classroom. However, the criteria are flexible enough to accommodate individual strengths and weaknesses in different children.
The level of literacy is the primary factor in determining exit. However, both bilingual coordinators at the elementary level expressed significant reservations about equating verbal and social fluency with cognitive fluency and literacy. Therefore, determining the literacy of a bilingual child can be quite difficult. Proficiency tests in speaking, reading and writing attempt to gauge a child's literacy in English. The bilingual educator also uses her everyday interactions with the student to supplement the test scores. Other factors determining exit include the California Achievement Test (CAT), mainstream and ESL teachers' evaluations, and parental input. For various reasons some parents wish to keep their children in the bilingual program; but if their children have the ability, exit becomes a requirement.
There is not an standard length of time for enrollment in the bilingual education program; however, children tend to need about three years before exiting and becoming completely mainstreamed. The time needed to exit depends largely on when the children enter and their personal background. The earlier a child enters the program, the easier it is to exit that child quickly. Furthermore, the strength of the child's cognitive skills in Spanish greatly influences the ease of exit; a child with adequate prior schooling tends to exit earlier than a child with a poor educational background. In turn, the strength of a child's educational background often depends on the strength of his or her parents' education. Regardless, Dr. Germand indicated that most of her students exit while still enrolled at Johnson Park. Another bilingual educator strongly believed that if Princeton elementary schools had a full time bilingual education program instead of a pull-out program children, barring unusual circumstances, would exit in three years with the ability to work on par with their native English speaking peers.
Presently, children who have been mainstreamed from the bilingual program sometimes have difficulty fitting in academically in their mainstream classes. However, at this stage, bilingual educators no longer fill the role of aiding the Latino children, so many children must seek alternative means of support. At Community Park, if a bilingual child needs help in school he or she is sent to basic skills, a resource center, because there is no tracking by ability at this school. Bilingual educators believe that the existing gaps result from the partial bilingual education program, and that the same gaps would exist in a "sink or swim" program.
Despite the difficulties with the bilingual education program, many students are exiting with good testing results. However, problems still remain and the struggles for most students are related to the level of achievement with which they entered, something which the schools cannot control. It is difficult for students lacking a strong educational foundation to catch up before the pressures to prematurely exit thrust them into the mainstream classroom permanently.
Princeton is a particularly sensitive political region due to the unique social dynamic within the community. The majority of the population consists of wealthy, highly educated families. However, living in close proximity with this majority are newly immigrated families who generally occupy a lower socioeconomic bracket. Princeton Regional Schools face the unenviable task of attempting to provide a quality education for all of the different backgrounds that reside within its jurisdiction. Within this context, bilingual education becomes one of several controversial issues that regularly appear on the local political agenda.
Looking at the Princeton Regional School Board offers an important example of the debate over achieving educational goals across the district. The school board has often been criticized for "infighting and a lack of cooperation" among its members and its division into two factions. One side generally advocates the retention of current programs and the incremental improvement of them as well as encouragement of community participation in district decision making. The other faction prefers a method of quicker reform. In the words of one influential former board member, Ms. Chiara Nappi, the school board experience is "frustrating" due to the "people on the board with personal agendas who try to stop change and who try to micromanage." Incidentally, Ms. Nappi spent a great deal of time and energy advocating and helping to pass the Parent Consent clause of the Bilingual Education mandate.
Past and current board members have described "philosophical differences" between members of the school board as the primary factor keeping board members from coming to a consensus on education issues. These philosophical differences form within the community and are reflected by the makeup of the school board. The deepest divisions appear to be differences over community participation in district decision making, educational goals, and management styles. All three of these issues have a significant impact on the bilingual education program in Princeton Regional Schools. One side tends to favor broad-based input from the community, thereby including the diverse population in district decision making, which allows for a greater focus on the needs of minority students. In recent history, a majority of the board has supported these goals. However, this could change with the addition of another board member who agrees with adding a more rigorous curriculum, tougher standards, and decreasing the amount of community input in district decisions. Again, former board member Chiara Nappi commented, "There are some people who believe that excellence and equity should be pursued together. There are other people-the self appointed minority advocates-who think that high standards are inherently inequitable. I think this is nonsense. You cannot reach equity by lowering the standards."
Meanwhile, within the community there is little agreement over bilingual education. One sector would like to see bilingual education eliminated completely, leaving only ESL services in the district. Others feel strongly that the retention of a student's native language is important, as well as beneficial to the learning process. One bilingual coordinator in the district noted the difference in socioeconomic position of the average Princetonian when compared to the socioeconomic position of the average child enrolled in the bilingual program. This is significant because the community decision makers are generally representative of the mainstream child and tend to represent mainstream interests. Difficulties arise when decisions about bilingual education are made without consulting the bilingual coordinators or anyone else with training or background in education and language acquisition.
Another bilingual coordinator went as far as to say that there would be "no program if not for the law." She perceived the school district as not being able to dedicate real resources to bilingual education because of the lack of support for the program in the community. Furthermore, she noted the difference in socioeconomic status between bilingual children and mainstream children, mentioning that the bilingual children and the bilingual program are not "resource favored" by the district despite the ample funding that the district apparently has. The hostility towards Spanish instruction in particular was another issue she questioned. There have been times when other languages, particularly Haitian Creole and German, have almost passed the 20 student mark. This bilingual coordinator could not help but wonder if the district would be more friendly to those programs.
However, the Latino community is not completely without a voice when it comes to local politics and discussions of bilingual education. The Latin American Task Force holds monthly meetings with parents and the Latino community so that they have an opportunity to speak and be represented. In addition, Dr. Simone holds an annual meeting with the school board to discuss the bilingual program specifically. Ultimately, the real power rests in the hands of the upper-class white majority. Hence the policy decisions depend on the delicate balance of opinions for and against bilingual education.
The divisions within the Princeton community, coupled with the fissures within the Princeton Regional Schools leadership, create an unstable foundation for the nurturing of bilingual education. At present, there does not appear to be an overwhelming mandate for the school board to decide in favor or against bilingual education. Until that happens, the future of the bilingual education program in the Princeton Regional Schools will remain controversial and subject to change.Perspectives on the Elementary Bilingual Programs
Upon entering Dr. Simone's office, a room dominated by file cabinets and stacks of paper, the great scope of responsibility that her job entails becomes quite obvious. For the past two years, Dr. Simone has carried out numerous administrative tasks within the district in addition to acting as the supervisor of the bilingual education program. She is responsible for the basic skills program, computer support faculty, and all funding and grant work. In addition, she supervises the Princeton Young Achievers (PYA) program, which is an after school program that provides more academic support for the students. And finally, all curriculum concerns fall under her guidance. Although bilingual education is an incendiary issue within the community that Dr. Simone gives much attention to, it is certainly not the least of her concerns. In talking to her we tried to understand the overall scope of the bilingual program with all of its difficulties, successes, and failures.
One thing that became clear is that the program is constantly affected by local politics whether the pressure is subtle or obvious. For example, she explained the necessity of a partial bilingual program in the elementary schools, as a motivation for getting a waiver from the state exempting Princeton from a full time program. A partial program is better suited for Princeton's needs than a full time program because of the danger of segregating the Latino children from their mainstream peers. "We feel that they are never going to learn English, and mix with the other kids. The problem with alienation and isolation is a problem already. Why would we make it worse?"
The distinction between the mainstream children and the bilingual children is an important one. It is the reality that pervades the issues concerning bilingual education. Dr. Simone noted that the unique Princeton population is comprised not only of wealthy, well educated suburbanites, but also professors and academics from the area's vast resources. This privileged majority is in stark contrast to the working class Latino immigrants, some of whom have had little to no formal education and many of whom do not have adequate English proficiency skills.
The Latino children constituting the students in the bilingual program differ from the children of the visiting professors and academics enrolled in the ESL program. The majority of the Latino students do not have a strong educational foundation, thereby making English acquisition extremely difficult, whereas the children of the visiting professors have had access to excellent educational opportunities. Particularly, at the high school level, there are drastically varying degrees of academic backgrounds, and therefore, ability. For example, there are some sixteen year-olds coming from Guatemala who have never even been to school before they came to Princeton. The enormous discrepancy between the new immigrants and the visiting academics' children explain the achievement gaps that are reflected in grades and tracking. Dr. Simone revealed that these comparisons are unfair because "[i]t's like comparing apples and oranges."
Dr. Simone described this situation as a 'bimodal' population in terms of achievement levels. On a normal achievement bell curve there should be a peak around fifty percent. However, Princeton has a bimodal curve with a surge at fifty percent and another around eighty or ninety percent. Because of the high achievement level of the visiting ESL students and other mainstream students, it seems like others, specifically those in the bilingual program, will never achieve. This dynamic is at the center of the debate over bilingual education. It appears that by having children learn their own language in the bilingual program, they are being condemned to a future of low level achievement and therefore fewer opportunities. However, the discrepancy in academic achievement between the visiting ESL students and the Spanish speaking bilingual students is a reflection of the discrepancy in their educational backgrounds, not necessarily a reflection on the success or failure of the bilingual education program.
Dr. Simone expressed concern because there are too many students going from bilingual instruction to remedial programs. Thus, the schools need to do a better job at making sure that students are ready to keep up with everybody else when they are mainstreamed. In many cases, students' English skills are sufficient, but they lack the overall academic abilities to make the transition from bilingual to mainstream. They may need an additional year in the bilingual program to sharpen their academic skills, but the state penalizes the district if students are kept beyond the recommended four years. Furthermore, since the primary focus must be placed upon the new students, old students are having to exit in order to maintain a reasonable student to bilingual teacher ratio. However, students have access to extra support by community groups, and this can facilitate the transition into the mainstream classroom.
Dr. Simone acknowledged the grave difficulties in terms of student achievement at the high school level. Students are not passing the High School Proficiency Test (HSPT) and are not graduating for a variety of reasons. For some, graduating means going back to the countries they came from. For others, it means entering the job market at a low level with limited mobility, as a result of limited education and limited training. Finally, for others, passing the HSPT and graduating may seem like an unrealistic goal because of their poor English proficiency. The end result is too many high school dropouts.
In order to combat this problem, the high school plans to experiment with a new set-up for their bilingual students. The bilingual students will be divided immediately upon entering the school system. Those who have gone to school and possess some educational background will be placed in an academically oriented program. The students who enter with little to no academic background will be placed in a special program in an effort to bring them up to their grade level. In this program, English will be taught along with native language reading and basic skills like addition and subtraction. By separating the students, this program hopes to address the different educational needs and facilitate a more efficient education.
Princeton's bilingual education program began with Dr. Caroline Germand. Today, her classroom in Johnson Park Elementary School has a couch, several tables, shelves stocked with books, two maps of Mexico and Guatemala, and many colorful posters printed with English and Spanish (see appendix G). However, when bilingual education first began in Princeton, Dr. Germand did not have all of these luxuries. Her career began in the mid 1980s as a result of the 1974 law mandating bilingual education for school districts with over 20 LEP students. Concerning the law which opened a position for her in Princeton, she noted that the state law means well, but is impractical, because of the low concentration of twenty LEP students spanning 12 grades.
Over the course of our interview, Dr. Germand was extremely frank, open, eager, and helpful. We met for an extended period of time one afternoon after school to try to gauge her feelings about bilingual education in Princeton, as well as her ideas and feelings about her program and responsibilities. Dr. Germand spoke at length about the structure of her individual bilingual classes at Johnson Park Elementary. There appeared to be a great amount of flexibility in the structuring of the bilingual classes. In the 1996-1997 school year, Dr. Germand is in charge of three classes consisting of five first graders, five third graders, and one class that doubles up fourth and fifth graders. Because of this division, the structure of the classes is not a permanent one, and is subject to change each year based off of that year's student numbers.
Teaching her three classes also entails keeping an eye on how her students perform in their mainstream classes. Of particular interest is the progression of her students in reading. Aside from her own teaching of reading within the confines of her classroom, Dr. Germand's students are also "tracked" in reading groups in a literature based instruction that permits children to read at their own level and gradually develop the reading skills necessary for advancing in reading comprehension. And as her fifth graders prepare to graduate, she remains in close contact with the director of bilingual education at the John Witherspoon Middle School to make the big transition to middle school easier. The bilingual children still enrolled in the program not only have to deal with the normal social and emotional difficulties of changing schools, but must also cope with the adjustment to a very different bilingual education program.
Despite the difficulties and added responsibilities that the pull-out program creates, Dr. Germand generally supports the idea of pull-out classes for bilingual instruction. Many people, she says, disagree with the theory of pull-out because it imposes a type of "segregation" within the schools dividing those children who speak English, from those children who speak Spanish (mainly Latino children). However, Dr. Germand listed a litany of reasons as to why pull-out is superior to the mainstreaming of bilingual education (having a bilingual educator go into the mainstream class). First of all, pull-out acts as an anchor for the children, allowing the teacher to see and instruct them in a regimented and consistent, daily manner. Secondly, if children who do not have fluent command of English are taught in the mainstream classes in English, then they tend to "tune out," which leads to an even more horrific type of segregation within the schools, a silent segregation. "You can only absorb so much in a second language," says Dr. Germand. With bilingual education, the children are guaranteed to understand at least ninety minutes a day of instruction. As a consequence of purely English instruction, active engagement in subject matter becomes lost because of the language barrier. This leads to the third rationale for the pull-out theory. By teaching Latino children in a mixture of their native language and English, not only do you engage them academically in subjects being taught in the mainstream classes, but you also strengthen their acquisition of English while maintaining their knowledge of Spanish. In retrospect, Dr. Germand prefers the present pull-out system because in her opinion, it is better than the one-room-schoolhouse style program she began with in the fall of 1986.
Dr. Germand also discussed her concerns about the outlook for bilingual education. Although she has never worried about job security (all the bilingual and ESL educators in the Princeton Regional School district possess certification to teach and therefore could be placed elsewhere if the bilingual education program were to be severely cut back), she is concerned about the children involved in the program if such a scenario were to actually occur.
According to Dr. Germand, many critics of bilingual education wrongly assume that when a child can speak English adequately, a skill which can be attained relatively quickly and efficiently, there is no need for bilingual education. In essence, the critics are implying that the ease with which children learn spoken English proves the wastefulness of bilingual education. It is much harder, in Dr. Germand's judgment, for a child to read English than to speak English. She argued that if "learning in the first language becomes strong, then naturally, the second language quickly becomes strong, too." In other words, learning is learning, and language knowledge is passed on to the child regardless of the language in which that knowledge is taught. Supported by research, she uses the idea that the two languages, English and Spanish, work with each other to make the child more secure in learning. Dr. Germand encouraged us to think of language with a capital L, as Language in general. Based on this concept, she insisted that the Latino student receives a higher quality education through first language instruction.
The critics of bilingual education pose more of a problem than mere rhetorical resistance. Dr. Germand pointed to the district boundaries established for the four elementary schools in the Princeton Regional Schools as an interesting phenomena related to bilingual education. The district seems to have drawn the district lines in order to consolidate bilingual education to only two out of the four schools. This has resulted in Latino students predominately attending the two elementary schools that offer the bilingual education program. When looked at from a historical perspective, this is a reversal of desegregation where minorities are traditionally bused out to more homogeneous schools to create diversity. Here in Princeton, the Latino students must be kept together to facilitate the already difficult bilingual education program. If a child needs and desires primary Spanish language instruction, then regardless of where the child lives he or she must attend either Johnson Park or Community Park. This somewhat questionable division within the school district could be an example of the limited education resources in the Princeton Regional school district.
While the Princeton community cannot seem to come to a consensus on bilingual education, the response from the Latino families has been generally positive. Dr. Germand felt Latino family involvement was satisfactory at Johnson Park but could be better. Difficulties arose because most parents are employed in the service industry with a range of working schedules, and because most families live downtown, far away from Johnson Park's location. Dr. Germand holds parent conferences so parents can remain informed about the progress of their child. From her interactions with the children and parents, Dr. Germand has formed the impression that the majority of parents try to help their children with homework. Appreciation and favorable reactions seem to be the common sentiment towards Dr. Germand and her program from the children's parents. They value her fluency in Spanish and her ability to hold conversations with them. The few parents who are unsupportive of the program usually believe that immersion is the best way to learn a language and that the bilingual program is an obstacle to that end.
Even the bilingual coordinators cannot defend their programs whole-heartedly. Dr. Germand, if given the power to create the ideal bilingual education program, had two main ideas for improvement at different levels of the education system. First, she would create an administrative and support system open to and interested in hearing and experimenting with different methods of second language acquisition. The district's unfriendliness to bilingual education at the elementary level leads Dr. Germand to believe that Princeton's bilingual program is fragmented across the district. With increased administrative support, Dr. Germand imagines that her colleagues would be more likely to approve of her efforts. Specifically, Dr. Germand would love to educate mainstream teachers and administrators, in language development and acquisition through staff development programs and the simulation of second language instruction. These two policies, combined with studying other school districts' methods in bilingual education would create the optimal environment for the teaching of bilingual education.
On the classroom level, Dr. Germand would like to see the creation of a dual-language program where half of the students' original language is English and the other half another language. Students in this program would be taught half of the time in one language and the other half of the time in the other language. Dr. Germand insists that this type of program would be just as effective as content learned solely in English. However, she warns that this dual-language program needs to be carefully set up because of the delicate dynamics of different languages, subject content, and ethnicity that are involved.
If this dual-language program could not be established, then Dr. Germand would also be pleased by the formation of self-contained classrooms, a concept in stark contrast to the dual-language program. In a self-contained classroom, all children would be drawn from the same language groups, and a single teacher would instruct them for the entire day. With this program, children would receive the constant attention of a teacher who could concentrate on the students' acquisition of English and keep the students on pace with mainstream classes in terms of content. Her only reservations about the self-contained program would be the perception of segregation of the Latino children. With both the dual-language and self-contained classroom programs, Dr. Germand speaks from prior experience. She has taught previously in both forms of instruction.
Dr. Germand's vision of an ideal bilingual education program will not be realized in the near future. Towards the end of our interview, Dr. Germand informed us that several important changes to the bilingual education program had been made recently, and a few more are expected in the following school year. She expressed confusion as to the impetus of the changes and was not sure what was fact or rumor. One definite change concerns the "Parent Consent Law". Dr. Germand was concerned that many children who would benefit from her program and who might even need her program might not be given the opportunity if their parents opt to use the "Parent Consent Law" .
The other less definite change concerns the possible mainstreaming of the bilingual education program, replacing the pull-out program with one in which the bilingual educator goes into the mainstream class. Bilingual educators will work with small groups as a support teacher. It is unknown how the state of New Jersey will rule on this change, so the future of Johnson Park's bilingual education program remains in the air. It will not be the first time it has changed, and it will assuredly not be the last.
Since 1991, the bilingual coordinator at the Community Park Elementary School has worked with the Princeton Latino community, first at Littlebrook Elementary School for two years, and subsequently at Community Park when the bilingual program moved there. Moving from location to location is not the only difficulty or source of change that the bilingual program encounters. Obviously, the children change year to year both in numbers and in personalities, and so the program is modified slightly each September.
At Community Park, the bilingual education classroom is alive with colors. Something occupies every corner of the room, from posters of numbers in English and Spanish, to tables for working, to a piano with ample bilingual music, to colorful toys. Everything is printed in two languages using bright primary colors (see appendix H). At first, the room is overwhelming in its multilingual splendor, but within a short period of time, reading Spanish becomes as natural as reading English and vice versa.
The bilingual educators at Community Park were obviously very busy; there was always a child in the room either with the aide or asking about a homework assignment, even though the school day was over. In talking with one, we tried to get a feel for what her job was like, what her frustrations were, what the program was like, and what her feelings about her job and responsibilities were.
The most obvious frustration, common to most public school teachers, seemed to be the numerous responsibilities one person had to balance with limited time. Due to the pull-out structure of Princeton elementary bilingual education, the more children enrolled, the more creative the teacher must be in order to schedule enough class time to meet the state requirements while simultaneously keeping the children caught up with their work. However, frustration naturally follows when you have fifth graders and kindergartners, all of whom require their primary language instruction at 1:15 Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. The hiring of the third bilingual educator who splits her time between Johnson Park and Community Park has eased some of the difficulty. However, her help came simultaneously with the change in designation for elementary school from K-4 to K-5. Recent hiring of aides to do follow up work with the children, like a tutor or resource worker, not primary instructor, has also helped to ease the logistical burdens and time constraints of the pull-out program.
Another source of ire, though not nearly as immediate, was the sticky subject of local politics. Educators are keenly aware of the division in the community over the substance of their work, although they believe that bilingual education is the best route for children who speak another language. She cited differences in socioeconomic conditions between the mainstream children and the bilingual children as the major source of tension in the community, not race.
These differences in class and the controversy over the bilingual program in the community also affect the Latino families' involvement in their children's education. At times, it is difficult to attract Latino parents to the school wide Parent's Night because of language and social difficulties with the other parents. However, parents are very involved and easily contacted, especially when a safe environment is created for them. For example, when the bilingual coordinators plan events, especially social ones involving food, parents are eager to come. There is a good parental response to calls, although sometimes they are hard to reach because of odd work schedules. Parents also seem to seek out the bilingual educators to ask them questions. The bottom line is that these immigrants came here for better opportunities, and they want their children to succeed. She believed that the parents consider the program to be a life line, an aid to the success of their children. Therefore, despite the opposition from the mainstream community, the bilingual educators feel that the Latino community's response to the program is very positive.
Bilingual educators must work to the best of their ability to achieve positive results within the constraints of the existing system and the opposition from parts of the community. But, the existing system is not ideal. It is an unique result of the different forces which exist in Princeton. Given full freedom and no budget constraints, Community Park's bilingual program would be very different. Ideally, she would create a full fledged dual language program. It would involve mainstream teachers who truly believed in the merits of the program and mainstream children whose parents also saw the advantages of bilingual education in addition to the native Spanish speaking children who need bilingual instruction. The classes would be half native English speakers and half native Spanish speakers and would be grouped as multi-age classes. For example, in a twenty child K-1 class there would be five native Spanish speaking kindergartners, five native Spanish speaking first graders, five native English speaking first graders, and five native English speaking kindergartners. This system would progress to a 2nd-3rd grade class, and finally a 4th-5th grade class. For each of these classes of roughly twenty children there would be two teachers: one mainstream teacher and one bilingual teacher. These two teachers would team teach to create dual language education for both groups of native speakers. There would be direct English as a second language as well as direct Spanish as a second language instruction. A concept would be taught in English one day, then reinforced in Spanish. The next concept would be taught in Spanish first and then English. In addition, there would be well planned activities to facilitate the interaction of the different groups of children and sometimes the activity would be in English, sometimes in Spanish.
Both teachers would need to be enthusiastic and the parents would need to volunteer their children for the program. However, there would be a lot of cooperative learning and both sets of children would understand what it is like not to understand what is going on (the typical native Spanish speaker's experience) as well as experiencing what it feels like to actually understand the material (the typical native English speaker's experience).
Another more economical alternative would be to have two classes of 20 children each, one class comprised completely of native English speakers and the other comprised completely of native Spanish speakers. There would then be two teachers team teaching both classes. This would pose more logistical problems because the teachers would be spread thinner, however, it would make more sense pragmatically.
In reality, the bilingual educators do not have the power to implement their ideas. She believed that the most opposition would come from the school board, which would be fueled by the mainstream children's parents. There has always been a push, whether subtle or not, to use English with the Latino children. However, there is great irony in the opposition to bilingual education because the present kindergartners will be tested at some point in the future for world language proficiency, a new state educational requirement. Her ideal program would not only be more effective for the Latino children, but also provide a necessary curriculum for the mainstream children.
The actual future of the program is ambiguous. The educator, despite this world language requirement, expects more struggles with the system and the community. Learning in English versus 'Learning' is something that is not necessarily understood by the larger Princeton community. The two are often equated when a native Spanish speaker may not get as much out of the lessons they learn in English. This can result in a gap, which will only compound as the child falls farther and farther behind. Although opponents of bilingual education say that the Spanish speaking children are not getting an equal opportunity at mainstream education, one could counter that the Spanish speaking child doesn't have an equal opportunity to learn the necessary basic skills when taught only in English. The unique situation that has arisen in Princeton, with an upper-class mainstream and a transient second language community is a volatile situation, but also an interesting one to watch evolve in the near future.
It seems unlikely that the unusual make up of the Princeton population, with a vast range in socioeconomic positions, will change. The university and other affiliated institutions will continue to attract upper class families, while simultaneously, the immigrant community will keep growing as their social network solidifies in the region. Thus, the tensions generated by this uncommon socioeconomic configuration will continue to strain local politics, particularly with regard to bilingual education. In spite of the strong opposition to bilingual education, the future of the program seems relatively secure. New Jersey law in combination with numerous community support groups, such as MECHA and the Latin American Task Force, form a safeguard that will protect the bilingual education program. However, neither political faction will concede their position on bilingual education, and both remain unsatisfied. The policy over bilingual education will maintain its stance of compromise, balancing the different pressures within the community. As for the actual structure of the program, the future holds many changes. The program may face potential problems from within the school system, due to the apparent lack of communication over bilingual education. Structurally the coordinators have always experimented with differing techniques and formats and will continue to do so. However, the fundamental differences between the opposing sides, which are unlikely to be resolved easily, are what shape the political climate, making a major change in local politics unlikely.
Coming into this project, we wondered as to the level of influence exerted by the state in mandates and educational legislation. We discovered through the course of the project that almost all change and decision making in the bilingual education system comes from local forces such as the school board or active parents. A result of this phenomenon is the creation of the Parent Consent clause of the New Jersey bilingual education mandate. This clause was included in the mandate after the continued objections and lobbying of a Princeton Regional Schools board member, demonstrating the influence local school districts can have on state education guidelines. Another source of local influence can be found within the political dynamic of the Princeton community concerning bilingual education. The direction of the local debate guides the changes to the Princeton bilingual education program because the authority in structuring the programs lies with the local school district not the state law.
Another important observation was the significance of the Assistant Superintendent's role in Princeton Regional Schools' bilingual education program. The combination of Dr. Simone's background with bilingual education and her recent appointment indicate a recognition of the needs of bilingual children within Princeton's school system. All of her education degrees involve bilingual education and language acquisition, in addition to school administration. Princeton's debate over bilingual education is not Dr. Simone's first; she has dealt with more severe situations in other communities. As Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Simone occupies a powerful position with respect to bilingual education. Her position allows her to protect it, or allow it to be changed in whatever direction. As long as she is in her current position, we feel that bilingual education will continue in the Princeton Regional Schools.
The two educators we spoke to agreed on almost all aspects of the bilingual program. However, there was one key issue of dissension, the factor of parental involvement. At Community Park parents were generally well-involved with the bilingual program in coming to parent-teacher conferences and helping students with their homework. The coordinator at Johnson Park voiced a differing view. Despite parental enthusiasm, Dr. Germand felt that parents could have made more frequent appearances at school functions. This may be due to the geography and districting of Princeton Regional Schools. The central location of Community Park is easily accessible to parents whose children are involved with the program. Latino immigrant parents, because of lower socioeconomic status, may not have access to transportation to Johnson Park, which is in a secluded area of the district. This factor probably explains the difference in parental involvement at the two schools.
Finally, over the course of this project, one common observation was the lack of communication that exists at some levels in the Princeton Regional Schools. This lack of communication complicates the effort to provide quality bilingual education in an already challenged system. Subsequent interviews confirmed this initial observation of communication difficulty. A prime example is the feeling of uncertainty over who initiated the coming changes to Johnson Park's bilingual education program. Dr. Germand thought that the proposal had originated in the superintendent's office while Dr. Simone informed us that the changes came from within Johnson Park. These communication difficulties may be explained by the overwhelming workload for educators in the program. Their jobs demand the utmost dedication to their students on a consistent basis, in addition to meeting the guidelines set by their superiors. Furthermore, they have a great degree of freedom in structuring the individual programs, so keeping the lines of communication open can get lost in the shuffle. Also, the resistance of other faculty members who are opposed to the bilingual program can compound the difficulties of providing an effective bilingual program, and contribute to a communication barrier.
We were struck by the dedication and commitment of the three women in charge of elementary bilingual education in Princeton Regional Schools. Despite a lack of cooperation within parts of the school system and the community, the two coordinators and their supervisor work to make the program as effective and positive as possible. The teachers recognize that education is fundamental to the aspirations that Latino immigrants have for their children. In the classrooms, away from all of the debates, these educators work to open opportunities for the Latino children through the bilingual education program.
Amsello, Jorge. "Immigrants and the Bilingual Barrier." Investor's Business Daily. 27 Mar 1997, A36. Ethnic News Watch. Online. March 1997.
Anonymous. Personal interview. 17 Apr 1997.
Chavez, Linda. "Symposium". Insight. 3 Jun 1996. Dow Jones News Retrieval. Online. March 1997.
Cho, James. "Princeton Candidates United about Divided Board." The Princeton Packet. 28 Mar 1997, 1A, 13A.
Germand, Caroline. Personal interview. 25 Mar 1997.
Greenblatt, Sarah. "School Board Faces Possible Shift of Power." The Princeton Packet. 21 Jun 1996, 1A, 14A.
Greenblatt, Sarah. "At Least Four Incumbents Aren't Seeking Re-election." The Princeton Packet. 30 Jan 1996, 1A, 8A.
Mujica, Mauro E. "Defending the English Language." The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education. 12 Apr 1996, 12. Ethnic News Watch. Online. March 1997.
Salas-Rojas, Alexandra. "The Debate Over Bilingual Education." The Hispanic Outlook on Higher Education. 15 Nov 1994, 10. Ethnic News Watch. Online. March 1997.
Simone, Cheryl. Personal interview. 17 Apr 1997.
Stern, Gary. "Controversy: Immigrant Parents Challenge Bilingual
Education." The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education.
5 Jan 1996, 6. Ethnic News Watch. Online. March 1997.