Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A case study on the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program in a K-12 school district
(USC Thesis Other)
A case study on the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program in a K-12 school district
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 1 A CASE STUDY ON THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DUAL LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAM IN A K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICT by Natasha Aino Neumann A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION August 2017 Copyright 2017 Natasha Aino Neumann PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 2 Acknowledgements Two years ago I was given the good advice to be mindful and purposeful in the mutual selection of a dissertation chair. Although I took this advice quite seriously, and sought out the individual I thought would best mentor me and cultivate my research skills, I underestimated the impact she would have on my heart as well as my mind. Dr. Artineh Samkian’s thoughtful, consistent, and honest direction has enabled me to grow into a novice qualitative researcher who is interested in accurately portraying the stories and experiences of my participants in order to provide information for others to gain and learn from. I have thoroughly enjoyed this process and thank you, Dr. Samkian, for immersing yourself into the betterment of my work. You have generously fit me into your life in order for me to arrive at this moment in time. I thank you so very much. There are three handsome devils in my life who were also loving, generous, and understanding about time together and time apart. I am grateful to my husband, Javier, and my two sons, Alejandro and David, who somehow turned into teenagers during this doctoral program. Javier and I had somewhat of a quiet and subtle roles shift this past three years as he grocery shopped, prepared savory meals, made doctor’s appointments and chauffeured for all of us, including our dog Daisy, all the while keeping the boys’ hair cut, well groomed, and in clothing and shoes that fit! I still smile at the plates of homemade food that would appear next to my laptop while I typed away and occupied half of the kitchen table. Then, a few hours later, coffee and cookies would appear. Te quiero, Javi. My two boys have learned to cook, coordinate their schedules, plan out their school work deadlines, and check whether or not I had a presentation or paper due if they needed my assistance over the weekend! I so enjoyed sharing the kitchen table in the late PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 3 afternoons and evenings with them while we all worked on our projects. Although Alex has firmly stated he will not pursue a doctorate, while he glanced over my shoulder at the work I was producing, or articles I was reading, I hope my example will inspire him otherwise. I do worry about the many times David told me not to worry if I couldn’t make a soccer game, a class presentation, or a birthday party. He said he knew I had work to finish. I am filled with pride as I see how Alex and David are growing into generous and capable young men. I thank my three gentlemen for time together and time apart. In addition to my husband and boys, my parents have also cheered me on. I also used their dinner table when I needed a quiet and empty nest to work in. I thank my mom for the countless times she told me I could do it! My dad recently told me I was extraordinary. Me? This comment still renders me speechless. I warmly thank my two great friends and colleagues who helped move us all out of a state of inertia, into this rewarding doctoral program, and now successful completion of the Ed.D., Lawton Gray and Nancy Hong. After years of discussion with the two of you about completing an Ed.D, I am so pleased to be with both of you here, now. I treasure the conversations and time spent working, laughing, and eating together. We urged each other forward, and will continue to do so for a very long time. This is just the beginning of great work we have before us. Finally, I thank the thinkers, planners, and implementers of this case study’s dual language immersion program. I feel fortunate to have learned from all of you and sincerely hope your experiences and story will enable more DLIP doers to bring the program to students and families. This work makes the world smaller and more understanding of one another. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 4 Table of Contents List of Tables 7 List of Figures 8 Abstract 9 Chapter One: Introduction 10 Background of Problem 14 Statement of Problem 18 Purpose of the Study 18 Research Questions 19 Significance of the Study 19 Researcher Role & Identity 20 Organization of the Dissertation 20 Chapter Two: Literature Review 21 Dual Language Immersion Programs 22 Definitions and Identified Features 22 Goals and Rationale for DLIPs 43 Theories of Change Processes and Leadership 52 Peter Senge 53 Michael Fullan 57 Richard Elmore 60 Robert Marzano 63 John Kotter 65 Dual Language Immersion and Implementation 69 Planning Phase 70 Implementation 80 Summary 85 Conceptual Framework 87 Summary 89 Chapter Three: Research Methods 91 Research Questions 91 Research Design 92 Philosophical Approaches 93 Sample 95 Setting 95 Participants 96 Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols 97 Qualitative Interviews 97 Data Analysis 100 Credibility and Trustworthiness 103 Limitations and Delimitations 105 Ethics 107 Conclusion 108 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 5 Chapter Four: Findings 110 Participants’ Language Acquisition and Experience 111 Language as Assets Value or Deficit System 113 Understanding the Struggle: Empathy 122 District Setting 131 Community and Parent Desire for DLIPs 131 Enrollment Challenges Based on Parent Interests 140 District Readiness 146 Rationale for Developing a DLIP 147 Board Directive and Superintendent Support 148 Student Outcomes as a Motivator for Planning a DLIP 155 Early Language Learning and Value of Foreign Language Learning 159 Begin Second Language Instruction at an Early Age 160 Value of Foreign Language Learning 164 Planning Phase 167 Establishing Goals, Program Design, and Instructional Practice 168 Studying Area Demographics and Identifying Needs of Parents and Children in the Community 173 Selecting Curriculum and Assessments 182 Recruiting and Hiring for Personnel 184 Implementation 194 Differences in Implementation Year Between the Literature and the Responses 197 Gradual Phase In 199 Hiring and Attrition 201 Visiting and Forming Partnerships, Attending Conferences, and Marketing 202 Successes and Lessons Learned During Implementation 206 A Well Implemented DLIP is Cyclical in Nature 221 Conclusion 226 Chapter Five: Discussion 228 Summary of Findings 229 DLIP Planner Background and Characteristics 229 DLIP Planners Saw Language as Assets 229 DLIP Planners Were Empathetic, Having Experienced Challenges of Language Acquisition 229 District Context Matters 230 Rationale for Developing a Dual Language Immersion Program 231 Planning Elements Are Not Just Planning Elements 232 Implementation is Only as Good as the Planning 235 Implications for Practice 237 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 6 Recommendations 241 K-12 School Districts 241 Partnerships Between K-12 Schools and Bilingual Credentialing Programs 242 Future Research 242 Conclusion 244 References 246 Appendix A: Interview Protocol Leadership Positions 252 Appendix B: Interview Protocol Teachers 262 Appendix C: Interview Protocol Parents 267 Appendix D: Recruitment Letter 271 Appendix E: Information Sheet 272 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 7 List of Tables Table 1: Factors That Promote the Planning and Implementation of a DLIP 41 Table 2: Main Elements in the Planning Phase 84 Table 3: Study Participants and Data Collection Methods 99 Table 4: Data Analysis Steps 102 Table 5: Participants’ Chart of Personal Experience with Languages Other Than English 130 Table 6: Typicality Counts for Participants’ Responses to the Rationale for for Implementing a DLIP 158 Table 7: Typicality Counts for Additional Reasons for DLIP Implementation 159 Table 8: Planning Phase Elements and the Frequency Mentioned by Participants (Typicality Counts) 168 Table 9: Action Steps Taken by Arcos Unified Next to Kotter’s 8 Steps for Leading Change 224 Table 10: Planning and Implementation ‘Must Dos’ and ‘Nice To Dos’ 225 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 8 List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 88 Figure 2: Arcos Unified Planning and Implementation Timeline 194 Figure 3: Implementation Phase from Conceptual Framework 196 Figure 4: Conceptual Framework Based on Findings 222 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 9 Abstract Dual language immersion programs are growing in number across the nation in response to both the needs of English language learners and native English speakers to mutually acquire a second language while learning academic content area beginning in kindergarten. The United States, and California in particular, continue to see the K-12 English language learner population grow. Simultaneously, parents and educators are seeking innovative strategies to prepare all students for a globalized economy, equipping students with a second language. Despite the growing popularity of DLIPs, there is a dearth of research on the planning and implementation of DLIPs. This study examined the reasons behind a K-12 school district’s decision to implement a dual language immersion program as well as explored the planning process the school district went through prior to implementation. Additionally, the nature of the initial year of implementation was examined. The findings from this qualitative case study were constructed from the stories and voices of ten different district and community stakeholders involved in the DLIP planning and implementation. The larger objective of this study was to inform school districts and educational practitioners interested in exploring a DLIP of the feasibility of applying this study to their school or district. The findings revealed a cyclical process of planning and implementation over a period of at least six years. Other findings indicated the significance of context and community when considering DLIP implementation as well as understanding the rationale behind the decision. The significance of the stakeholders’ second language background and attitudes towards second language acquisition also surfaced. Finally, this dissertation described implications and made recommendations for future DLIP implementers. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 10 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION As the United States continues to see its English language learner (ELL) population increase, schools around the country are exploring different bilingual models, in an effort to promote academic achievement for all students, despite language background. The American educational system has sought to create equal opportunities for students whose first language is not English for the past 40 years. The English language learner population is growing and often these students do not attain the same level of academic achievement as their English speaking peers (Lindholm-Leary, K., & Genesee, F. (2010). According to Mitchell’s (2015) article, New York Expanding Dual Language to Help Its English-Learners, “Fewer than 5 percent of ELL students passed the state’s English language arts exam in 2014 compared with nearly 30 percent of all New York City students” (p.7). Past educational approaches to support English language learners have not proved effective as these students are often behind their English speaking peers in academic achievement (American Councils for International Education Research Center, 2016 At the same time, a growing number of monolingual English speaking parents are looking for schools that offer foreign language instruction as enrichment for their elementary age children to learn a second language. One model, which simultaneously addresses the needs of English language learners (ELLs) and native English speakers acquiring a second language, is the dual language immersion program (DLIP). Dual language immersion programs serve both ELL students who are acquiring English, as well as native English speakers who are acquiring a second language (Bearse & de Jong, 2008). In addition to language acquisition, Gerena (2011) found dual language immersion programs promote academic success for both groups of students. Gerena (2011) explained the goals of the dual language immersion program are academic excellence and language proficiency in two languages, English and the second target language PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 11 through content area instruction in both languages. As the literature review in Chapter Two will outline, in addition to positive academic and cognitive outcomes, dual language immersion programs encourage and foster a cultural understanding amongst peers of different backgrounds in the same classroom, striving to learn each other’s language though content. In other words, dual language immersion programs promote cross cultural awareness and an appreciation for fellow students from a variety of ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. Not only are cross cultural relations and an appreciation for students from a different background built amongst students in a dual language immersion program, but the status and role of the two languages are leveled and equally valued. Sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu (1991) described linguistic capital as the monetary- like embodiment connecting language use and status to the decisions around when and how we use language to maximize our power. Bourdieu’s linguistic capital theories have repercussions in the field of education and bilingual education as children of minority languages are either schooled in English only or English along with their native language. By schooling in multiple languages, these programs also raise the status and importance of languages other than English (Gomez et al, 2005). Unlike an era of English Only policy in this country, policy makers and parents are currently striving to educate globally competent and bilingual students as this is what the global marketplace demands. Proficiency in a second language and intercultural competency open up employment opportunities. Many employment sectors demand increasing involvement in the global economy. High level and high paying jobs will demand competence in more than one language (Fixman, 1990; Garcia & Otheguy, 1994; Halliwell, 1999; Mann, Brassell, & Bevan, 2011). On a sociocultural level, becoming bilingual expands one’s worldview and enables one to not only know more but also know differently. In summary, language is viewed as a resource in PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 12 the current global marketplace (Gomez et al, 2005). Given this current climate, dual language immersion programs are a promising approach in education. The push for globally competent and bilingual students is set in a context of an already diverse country in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2013), “the percentage of public school students in the United States who were English language learners was higher in school year 2011–12 (9.1 percent, or an estimated 4.4million students) than in 2002–03 (8.7 percent, or an estimated 4.1 million students).” In contrast to the national statistics, the English language learner population in the state of California in which this study is based, is higher at 29% of the state’s K-12 public school enrollment. As the student population changes, so must teachers and schools adapt to students’ needs. DLIPs are a method of adapting instruction to meet the needs of a linguistically diverse student population as well as the language majority students. In contrast to other bilingual education programs, DLIPs are also better positioned to encourage cross-cultural understanding and biliteracy as demanded by the global marketplace (Genesee & Gandara, (1999). In the United States, research indicates language minority students, also termed English language learners, tend to perform better academically when they receive instruction in their native language (Greene, 1998; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Willig, 1985) and that language minority students with high levels of literacy and academic achievement in their native language tend to attain higher levels of literacy and academic achievement in English as well (Collier, 1992; Lanauze & Snow, 1980). Additionally, language majority students, also called native English speakers, are able to maintain grade-level academic achievement and English literacy skills despite receiving most of their daily instruction in a second language at the same time (Thomas & Collier, 2012). Additive bilingual models such as these can thus be effective for PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 13 language minority and language majority students (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). DLIPs are a unique method of integrating language minority and language majority students, teaching content in two languages, and promoting positive attitudes towards both languages and cultures. This is a valuable experience for students who will become adults in a diverse workforce in a globally interdependent world. Given the promising outcomes of DLIPs, it’s important to study these programs in more depth. Currently, there is a dearth of literatue on exactly how these programs are implemented and function. The planning and initial implementation of a dual language immersion program is key to the program’s long-term success and fulfillment of its goals of bilingualism, biliteracy and cross-cultural awareness. Once a district decides to implement a DLIP, there are several suggested steps in the planning phase for a district to move through as it anticipates its opening implementation year. In addition to the planning phase, the literature also identified further steps a district should take, once implementation has begun, to ensure the goals of the DLIP are met. Districts considering future implementation of a DLIP can benefit from learning about the experience of a district’s process of planning and implementation because while general guidelines have been outlined in the literature, nuanced descriptions of these processes have not been communicated. Thus, I will use a qualitative research approach, detailed in Chapter Three, to document the planning and implementation phases of one K-12 school district’s dual language immersion program. Understanding how a school district plans for and implements a dual language immersion program is a step towards ensuring an educational program that will support the attainment of bilingualism, biliteracy and cross cultural skills for all participating students. In this chapter, I will provide a context for this study by providing the background of the problem, the statement PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 14 of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, and the organization of the dissertation. Background of the Problem As the literature in the next chapter will outline, there are two main reasons districts decide to implement a dual language immersion program (DLIP): to provide English language learners exposure to native English speakers and more robust learning opportunities by learning side by side in the same classroom and 2) to provide enrichment and the acquisition of a second language for native English speakers. This approach is also often called a “two-way immersion” program. According to Howard and Christian (2002) two-way immersion programs have been in existence in the U.S. for the past 40 years. Legislation was passed in the 1970s to ensure the needs of English language learners would be met with appropriate instruction and materials. The term bilingual education evokes polarizing viewpoints on its place in public schools. Bilingual education has been debated since the passage of the Bilingual Education Act in 1968 and the Lau decision in 1974 as an instructional strategy to meet the needs of English language learners (Baker, 2006; Crawford, 2007; Wiley, 2006). In response to the criticism of bilingual programs, Cummins (1994, 1981) conducted research validating bilingual education as an instructional practice, one that produces both academic achievement as well as the attainment of bilingual and biliterate students. One of his findings was the amount of time an English learner should remain in a bilingual program in order to gain proficiency and command of a second language. This is significant in planning and implementing a DLIP, as leaders must plan six to eight years out to assure bilingual proficiency. In addition to the positive effects on achievement and attainment of biliterate and bilingual proficiency in a DLIP, are also the benefits of cross-cultural skills and global awareness students develop while in a DLIP (Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002). PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 15 While two-way immersion programs have been in existence for quite some time, the growth and popularity of DLIPs is a recent phenomenon across the nation and found in all geographic areas. The majority of the current DLIPs in the U.S. are in Spanish and English in public elementary schools. However, as Harris (2015) writes, New York City alone has 180 DLIPs offering instruction in Arabic, Chinese, French, Haitian-Creole, Hebrew, Polish, Korean, Russian, and Spanish. Libia Gil, the assistant deputy secretary and director of the office of English language acquisition at the U.S. Department of Education stated, “while there was no definitive count of dual language programs nationwide, there are clear indications of a movement” (Harris, 2015 p.1). Howard and Christian (2002) attribute the rise in popularity to research demonstrating the effectiveness of DLIPs for both native English speakers and native speakers of another language. Research on the academic gains and success of students in DLIPs for both language groups, and across curriculum show high academic gains and success in both languages studied (Genesee et al., 2005; Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2004; Lindholm-Leary, 2003; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2001). This research on the effectiveness of DLIPs will be discussed further in the literature review in Chapter Two. In addition to the effectiveness of DLIPs in developing second/another language proficiency, policy makers and educators in the U.S. acknowledge a need for residents who are proficient in more than one language (Howard & Christian, 2002; Christian, 1996; Calderon & Carreon, 2000). Raising biliterate students through our public schools expands our nation’s language resources by conserving and building upon language skills of minority students while developing second language skills in English speaking students. In addition to increasing the bilingual population, there is hope of improving relations between majority and minority groups by building cross-cultural understanding and appreciation (Christian, 1996). PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 16 While there have been many stated benefits of DLIPs, with the rise in popularity of DLIPs and the implementation of programs across the country come the concerns and questions about how to best plan and implement the program. Kathryn Lindholm-Leary (2012) outlines these concerns and questions. Some of the issues she notes when planning for a DLIP are: program design, accountability, curriculum and instruction related to biliteracy and bilingual language development. Student makeup of the classes, and the decision of which program model to implement, (i.e., 90:10 or 50:50) are other factors to consider when planning and later implementing. Valencia (2002) states, “two-way bilingual education appears to be the only model that places and sensitizes English speakers in a second language learning environment, it also stresses linguistic integration in the classroom” (p.103). Along with Valencia (2002), Crawford (1989) asserted, “if public schools follow the criteria for effective two-way bilingual education programs, then it [biliteracy in other subject areas] can be accomplished” (p.104). Program credibility and more importantly, student biliteracy, is at stake if not implemented correctly. This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two. In addition to producing bilingual and biliterate students, students participating in DLIPs perform at or above grade level on standardized reading and mathematics tests (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006; Lindholm-Leary & Genessee, 2010; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008). Planning and implementing a DLIP well, has positive affects on the academic achievement in content areas besides literacy, as the standardized math scores indicate. Much of this research comes from Spanish/English DLIPs. However, the same results are found among students participating in Chinese and Korean DLIPs (Garcia, 2003; Lindholm-Leary, 2001, 2011). These findings about high student achievement are consistent despite the range of students from different ethnic backgrounds, linguistic, and socio-economic levels participating in the program PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 17 (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010). Conversely, in an article about native language loss amongst Asian immigrant students, Ng et al. (2009) found the process of native language loss occurs in less than three generations as immigrant students acculturate to their language majority, English speaking schools. As native language is lost, so are customs and traditions forgotten. Tse (2001) argues that “schools alone have limited ability to revitalize threatened languages” (p.107) because resisting the process requires a larger involvement of institutions and policy makers who value minority languages. These findings regarding the value of DLIPs and the loss in native language in the absence of DLIPs, support districts’ reasons for implementing DLIPs, which is the focus of this study. While there is much research on the timeline for planning for a DLIP, as well as topics to consider during planning, there is a dearth of research focusing on the actual implementation year of a school district. The literature discusses planning and rationale for implementation, but there are few studies that examine the nature of the implementation year. Amaya Garcia (2015) writes, “Implementation matters as much as program goals and design” (p. 1). Without the fidelity to a program and an understanding of the components to have in place, districts may not be setting themselves up for long-term success and student attainment of biliteracy. The nature of the first year is critical in gaining trust from stakeholders and building support amongst parents and staff to sustain the DLIP. As popularity for DLIPs grows and districts seek to plan and implement them, more research is needed to understand how districts can prepare to move through these processes. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 18 Statement of the Problem As stated earlier, the growth of dual language immersion programs seems to be a movement happening across the nation (Harris, 2015). However, there is little qualitative research on what this looks like for a K-12 district. Successful outcomes and goals of biliteracy require a clear understanding of all the components involved in planning and implementing a DLIP. As Kathryn Lindholm-Leary (2012) states, “…it is important to examine some of the successes, as well as challenges, identified in the research on dual language education programs, along with some of the implementation issues that are associated with high quality programs and can impact student outcomes” (p.257). With the rise in DLIPs, and the expectations of parents and policy makers to produce globally competent and biliterate students with cross-cultural awareness, it is important to study how a district plans for and implements a dual language immersion program. Specific, descriptions of these processes can provide additions to the literature base on this unique method of delivering instruction across content areas in two languages. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to understand the reasons why a K-12 school district decided to implement a dual language immersion program. Additionally, the study explored the planning process the school district went through prior to implementation. Finally, the nature of the initial year of implementation was examined. This qualitative case study intended to capture the story and voices of district personnel such as the superintendent, assistant superintendent of educational services, the assistant superintendent of human resources, principals of DLIP schools, and parents involved in these stages of DLIP planning and implementation. The larger goal of this study was to inform school districts and educational practitioners interested in PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 19 exploring a DLIP of the feasibility of applying this study to their school or district. The following research questions guided this study. Research Questions 1. How and for what reasons did a K-12 district plan for a DLIP? 2. What is the nature of implementation in the first year of DLIP in one K-12 district? Significance of the Study This study on the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program is significant because it has the potential to guide and inform school districts that are considering DLIP. First, understanding the rationale and purposes of implementing a DLIP are important to articulate to stakeholders and teachers to build a support base. As the population of English language learners grows and the demand from monolingual English speaking parents to enroll their children in foreign language programs also gains popularity, DLIPs serve as a program to bridge and connect these two populations and their academic needs. Second, by describing the planning and implementation of a DLIP in a K-12 school district, this study aimed to provide insight on how to create such a bridge. This study also has the potential to inform policy makers and educational leaders about the planning and implementation process as they look for educational methods and strategies to serve all students for a global work force. Planning and implementation are the initial steps to understanding how to adopt or begin a new educational program, and this study aimed to assist educational practitioners with understanding these processes so as to more successfully implement DLIPs. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 20 Researcher Role and Identity I, the researcher, am bilingual in Spanish and English, hold a bilingual, cross-cultural, and academic development (BCLAD) credential as well as a single subject Spanish credential. I have taught in several bilingual programs in different California school districts as well as in Spain. I have also taught English in an adult education program to new immigrants. In my home, with my husband and children, we speak Spanish and English. Organization of the Dissertation This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One provides a background and context for the study, the statement of the problem, the research questions, the purpose of the study and the significance of the study. Chapter Two is the literature review, and it examines empirical studies on the rationale for DLIPs, literature outlining key parts of the planning phase, empirical studies on implementation, and finally theoretical articles on leadership and change theories which are important in the planning and implementation stages. Chapter Two concludes with a conceptual framework that guides this study. Chapter Three describes the research methods I used for this qualitative case study. In Chapter Three I present my research design, philosophical approaches, a description of the sampling and recruitment methods, the instrument and data collection methods, the data analysis process, and the limitations and delimitations of the study. Additionally, I describe some of the ethical issues related to conducting this study as well as what steps I took to ensure credibility and trustworthiness of the findings in this study. Chapter Four presents the study’s findings using data collected from the participants. Finally, Chapter Five summarizes the findings, discusses the implications of the study and concludes with ideas about further research. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 21 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW This study examined the reasons a K-12 Urban School District decided to implement a dual language immersion program (DLIP) as well as how the same district planned and implemented the program. In order to understand how a dual language immersion program is defined, I relied on the literature describing programs school districts currently have in place. There are several terms in the literature to describe bilingual language programs. Thus, I rely on the literature to define terms such as dual language immersion programs, two-way immersion programs, bilingual education programs, immersion programs, and transition programs. In order to understand goals and rationale of programs, definitions must first be clarified. Therefore, the first section is titled ‘Definitions and Identified Features of DLIPs.’ After I discuss the different programs and terms defining dual language immersion programs, I use the literature to explain the goals, and then rationale behind establishing a dual language immersion program. This next section is titled, ‘Goals and Rationale for dual language immersion programs.’ Once I establish the definition and goals of a DLIP, I conclude the first section with the two main rationales, as revealed through the literature, explaining why school districts implement such programs. The second subsection under the Literature Review titled, ‘Theories of Change Process and Leadership,’ explores theoretical articles describing systems of implementation across an organization like a school district. A program’s successful implementation relies on a systematic process. Theorists such as Elmore, Fullan, Marzano, Senge, and Kotter are used to frame the study about how changes take place and about the role of leaders in these change processes. Finally, the third subsection highlights two types of empirical studies and briefs: 1) how districts planned for implementation and 2) the implementation process in districts that have implemented PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 22 dual language immersion programs. This chapter concludes with a conceptual framework, which encompasses the literature reviewed as well as helps to frame this inquiry. Dual Language Immersion Programs Definitions and Identified Features of DLIPs In order to understand how to effectively implement and plan for a Dual Language Immersion Program, a clear definition and understanding of program goals must be established. As popularity in foreign language programs grows, districts considering implementation must be able to articulate the definition and goals of their dual language immersion program. Included in this review of the literature are two sections: 1) definitions and identified features of DLIPs, and 2) goals and rationales of DLIPs. This section of the literature review will focus on dual language immersion programs, sometimes called “two-way immersion education,” purposefully excluding bilingual education models that seek only to teach English language learners how to communicate in the dominant language, English. Donna Christian (1996) examined two-way immersion education in the United States, describing the program’s goals and rationale through her study, which collected survey data from 169 schools operating a two-way immersion program. According to Collier and Thomas (2004), Lindholm-Leary has conducted the largest number of longitudinal studies on student achievement in two-way dual language schools in California. This literature review relied heavily on Christian’s comprehensive study and Lindholm-Leary’s studies to define and identify features of DLIPs. Christian’s (1996) work will be discussed in both sections, as she defines features of DLIPs, and also outlines goals of DLIPS. Christian (1996) used the term two-way immersion program in her article, which is synonymous with dual language immersion program. She explained one language of instruction is the native language (L1) of the language minority PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 23 student (called the target language), and the second language is English. The classroom is made up of native English speakers learning the target language, as well as target language speakers learning English. Students receive content area instruction in both English as well as the target language. In order to have language role models in a single classroom, students from the two language backgrounds are placed together in the same classroom and they are side by side for most if not all of their content instruction. Christian (1996) pointed out that although there is current renewed interest in language acquisition programs, they are not a new idea in the public education system. For example, Coral Way Bilingual Elementary School in Miami, the site of Christian’s study began two-way immersion in the 1960s and continued until the time of her study (Christian, 1996). Since the 1980s, the two-way immersion approach has gained in popularity across the nation. Christian (1996) attributes this increased popularity to increased attention to foreign language learning, increased research on effective programs for educating language minority students, and the availability of federal and state funds for programs using two-way immersion. Christian’s (1996) findings reflect data collected from two-way programs from 169 schools around the nation. She sampled a large number of schools because she intended to include each geographic location, during the 1991-1992, 1992-1993, and 1993-1994 school years. Aside from stating the reason why schools were chosen, to represent a variety of geographical locations, Christian doesn’t specify exactly why these school sites were selected. The study looked at two-way immersion programs in 92 different school districts in 17 different states including the District of Columbia. New York and California had the highest number of schools with two-way immersion programs, 31 and 28 respectively. Across the nation, most schools used Spanish and English at the elementary level as their two languages of instruction. In PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 24 Christian’s (1996) study, 155 out of 169 schools used English and Spanish in their two-way program. Despite this commonality in Spanish and English across the nation, the proportion of native language speakers of Spanish and English varied in each classroom. This is noteworthy because researchers have found the ideal classroom makeup for a DLIP is 50% target language speakers and 50% native English speakers. In addition, there were seven other languages represented in the study as the target language including Cantonese, Korean, Navajo, Japanese, Russian, Portuguese, and French. The proportion of native language speakers varied widely across the districts. Christian (1996) asserted the two-way immersion approach works best when the numbers of students in each class is balanced, but it may not always be feasible. The feasibility of supporting a two-way immersion program depends on the native languages of the students who will participate in the program. The study also found programs differed by grade levels served. Most programs began in kindergarten and continued through sixth grade. However, some schools continued through eighth grade. Although the 169 schools in the study reported instruction in a two-way immersion program, the exact program design of the schools in the study varied across the nation. Christian (1996) identified two categories of program design that differentiated the programs in her study: allocation of languages and student integration. The study found although an elementary school states it has a two-way immersion program, the way it distributes the two languages throughout the day varies from school to school. Thus schools define two-way immersion differently, depending on the use of English or the target language throughout the day and for which content area each is used. Schools reported they kept the languages separate in three different ways or a combination. Languages were kept separate by content area (social studies and math were taught in Spanish while science, art, and music were taught in English), by time (instruction is in each PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 25 language on alternate days), or by person (one teacher uses only Cantonese and another uses only English). Christian (1996) also found the distribution of languages depended on the amount of target (non-English) language used for classroom instruction. The study found two patterns of target language use. In one program, the 90:10 model was used beginning in kindergarten with 90% of the day’s instruction in the target language. In this model, English is gradually increased by 10% each year with the target language diminishing by 10% until instruction is 50% in each language by the upper elementary grades. In the second program, the 50:50 model, the percentage of instruction is equal in each language starting in kindergarten. The study found three-fourths of the schools studied, California and New York making up the two-thirds, fell into one of these two-way immersion program categories. Most of the schools using the 90:10 model were located on the west coast, mostly in California, while most of the 50:50 programs were located on the east coast. The programs that differed from the 90:10 and 50:50 models offered target language instruction less than 50% of the day or they separated students according to language ability for parts of the day, changing the amount of common language instruction time for the entire class during the day. The second distinguishing two-way immersion program design feature, student integration, describes how and when students from the different language backgrounds are integrated or grouped separately based on native language. The study found most programs kept students of both language backgrounds together all day long, and were never separated based on native language. However, some programs reported placing students in separate classes based on language background and then for part of the day, integrating students with a partner class for some time each day of the week. For example, in a Spanish/English program, English-speaking 1 st graders would be placed in one classroom receiving English content area instruction, and their PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 26 Spanish-speaking partners would be in another classroom, receiving parallel instruction in one or both of the languages, partnering up at designated times during the week. This type of program doesn’t follow the 90:10 model or the 50:50 model, and gives students more instructional time in their native language. Christian (1996) asserted this model allows for strong development of a student’s first language, however, students may not develop bilingual proficiency as they spend less cross-group classroom time together. Christian (1996) found two-way immersion programs, despite their differences in program design, are “effective” in addressing several educational issues in the U.S. First, she stated that two-way immersion programs are “effective” in educating non-native English- speaking students in an additive bilingual environment, which promotes their first language and adds a second language. While her study did not directly test the effectiveness of these two-way immersion programs, Christian (1996) cited Lindholm and Gavlek’s (1994) study of four different California schools, which found by fifth grade 75% to 92% of non-native English speaking fifth graders were rated as fluent in English on a teacher rating instrument called the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM). The same group of non-native English speakers ranked in the 25 th to 72 nd percentile on assessments given in English and in the 25 th to 90 th percentile on tests given in Spanish. Christian (1996) asserts two-way immersion programs also afford the expansion of our nation’s language resources, which means minority students’ native language is preserved and another language is added to native English speakers. Finally, Christian (1996) concludes two-way immersion programs promise to improve relationships between majority and minority groups through cross-cultural appreciation and understanding, because the two groups of students are placed in a classroom and learn each other’s language and culture. While Christian (1996) stated she did not intend to look for improvement in cultural PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 27 relations in her data collection, her findings pointed her to the conclusion that two-way immersion programs address several serious issues, such as cross-cultural relations, facing the U.S. today. Christian (1996) assumed when students of different cultural backgrounds are put together, relationships across students of different backgrounds will improve. Lindholm-Leary (2005) also defined characteristics of “Dual Language Education Programs” in a review of literature focused on these programs, which have effectively promoted positive academic outcomes for students. The sources included in the article came from articles published in peer-reviewed journals, research-based reviews of literature, studies written in published chapters and books, and reports prepared for the Department of Education. Lindholm- Leary also used data from a focus group conducted with experts in dual language education in order to provide a definition for these programs and to identify the key features of effective programs. The focus group consisted of experienced teachers, resource teachers, program coordinators, principals, district administrators, and researchers. The article defined effective programs as those that have promoted academic achievement, language proficiency, school attendance, multiculturalism and cooperative groupings amongst different languages, and motivation in English Language Learner (ELL) students. Lindholm-Leary’s description of these programs are similar to Christian’s (1996) as she also identified multiculturalism, valuing students’ culture, and cooperative learning groups with extensive interaction among students to develop bilingualism. This crossover is significant, as it makes a stronger case for defining features of a DLIP. Corroborating the expert panel’s responses, Lindholm-Leary (2005) found the same factors noted across the literature and categorized them into seven categories. These seven categories promoted successful student outcomes and included: 1) assessment and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 28 accountability, 2) curriculum, 3) instructional practices, 4) staff quality and professional development, 5) program structure, 6) family and community involvement, and 7) support. Lindholm-Leary (2005) noted that these defining factors of a successful dual language program are the same successful factors found in effective mainstream schools, as studied by and also identified by Marzano (2003). Despite the similarities in what makes for successful schools, whether dual language programs or English only schools, the panel of experts Lindholm-Leary spoke to agreed that one emphasis for DLIPs is the community context and school population of each potential DLIP setting. These factors must be taken into account when developing a dual language immersion program beginning in Kindergarten. Program administrators must think about the design, implementation, and refinement of their own programs to fit their local school community. Understanding all seven strands is important because Lindholm-Leary’s review of research, which examined these strands, can assist new and established dual language programs attain or sustain success. While awareness of all seven strands is important, Lindholm–Leary’s (2005) fifth factor titled program structure, is most relevant to this review of literature because it identifies planning and related defining components of a successful Dual Language Program. Program structure includes being specific about what kind of model is chosen and how ongoing and continuous planning is implemented. As such, in the section that follows, I will outline the components of program structure in more detail. Program structure is broken down into five categories: 1) a cohesive school-wide shared vision and set of goals, 2) equity at district, school, and classroom levels with respect to treatment of students, families, and teachers, 3) effective leadership is in place, 4) a language education model is in place, and 5) there is a process for ongoing, continuous planning. Most PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 29 pertinent to this review of the literature in the article’s discussion of program structure are the fourth and fifth categories listed above: the language education model is clearly identified and there is ongoing and continuous planning. According to Corallo and McDonald (2002), the process of selecting a program model should include a needs assessment, part of continuous planning, to analyze program development and instructional issues. This assessment should include the input of teachers, parents, and administrators (Corallo & McDonald, 2002). The needs assessment process should include a review of the literature on effective dual language models for the group to build a knowledge base of theory and rationale for decision-making. For example, when a Dual Language program is in this phase of needs assessment, the participants need to be able to plan out for six years of programming, because as the research suggests higher student outcomes in a dual language program are achieved by students participating over a six- year period (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1981; Swain, 1984; Troike, 1978; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, in press). Also under program structure, the decision of which language model to use at the start of a program, defines the ratio of English language to the non-English language used in classroom instruction. Lindholm-Leary’s (2005) review found three studies that looked at whether the amount of primary language instruction is a significant factor in promoting achievement for English language learners. Ramirez (1992) conducted the first of the three studies. Ramirez (1992) compared late-exit programs to early exit, transitional programs to determine if outcomes were better for programs that used more Spanish or English in the later grades. The results were comparable for both languages for students in the sixth grade in English reading and writing skills. However, in mathematics, students’ scores were comparable in Grade 1 but by Grade 6, students who were in the late exit program with more Spanish instruction had higher levels of PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 30 growth than those with more English instruction. Ramirez (1992) found students in the late-exit program with more target language or minority language instruction in the upper grades showed accelerated achievement growth from third to sixth grade. As stated earlier, Christian’s work (1996) found that there are two main variations in dual language program models: a 90:10 model or a 50:50 model. In a 90:10 model, starting in Kindergarten, 90% of the day is taught in the target language, and 10% is in English, with a gradual increase in English in the upper grades until English instruction reaches 50% of the day (Christian et al, 1997; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). In a 50:50 model, instruction in the majority and minority language is divided evenly at all grade levels. Lindholm-Leary’s (2001) review showed the 90:10 model students who had been in the program since Kindergarten, were more likely to be fully proficient bilinguals, and they scored similarly in reading and mathematics achievement compared to students in 50:50 programs. Lindholm-Leary (2005) explained these results are true for participating students who had been in the program for at least 6 years. However, Christian et al. (1997) found student outcomes of 90:10 and 50:50 did not differ greatly as it related to language proficiency or academic achievement in English or Spanish. The study did not disaggregate results by students’ language background. According to Lindholm-Leary’s (2005) review of strand 5, program structure, there is no research to date to determine the best ratio of English to the non-English language that will promote bilingual proficiency and grade level achievement in dual language programs. However, based on the results of the three studies discussed in the article’s review of effective features of dual language programs, the researchers cited in the review, Collier (1992) and Christian, Montone, Lindholm, and Carranza (1997), concur students need significant exposure to the non- English language to promote high levels of proficiency and achievement in that language, as it is PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 31 the minority language. While the review acknowledges that this percentage is not refuted or supported by research, significant exposure is defined to be at least 50% of the instructional day with the non-English language. Based on Lindholm-Leary’s (2005) collection of program evaluations of effective dual language program practices, a minimum of 10% of the day should be in English, but no more than 50%, in order to promote and value the acquisition of the target language. Lindholm-Leary asserted programs that start their dual language programs in kindergarten with 10% of their day in English should have an incremental increase in English language use, each year until the instructional day is 50% English, by fifth grade. Lindholm-Leary (2005) also discussed literacy instruction in two languages as part of program structure. The model must address whether reading instruction is done in the students’ primary language, and have the second language added later. Alternatively, can reading instruction happen simultaneously in both languages? Lindholm-Leary (2005) drew on prior research that examined the prestige and dominance one language may have over another. The less socially prestigious and powerful language in a society is the one most subject to language loss (Pease–Alvarez, 1993; Portes & Hao, 1998; Veltman, 1998). In order to promote the non- English language, establish prestige, and counter-balance the mainstream dominant language, the non-English language must receive more focus in the early stages of an immersion program (Pease –Alvarez, 1993; Portes & Hao, 1998; Veltman, 1998). For example, in a 90:10 model, in which students are receiving almost all of their instruction through the non-English language, literacy must begin in that non-English language. Another component of program structure that is relevant to this study on DLIP implementation and planning is the student body makeup of the classroom for a dual language program. According to Lindholm-Leary’s (2005) review, in order to maintain an environment of PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 32 equity and appreciation for both languages, the classroom population should be made up of 50% non-English speakers and 50% English speakers. Further, to ensure there are enough language models for each language to promote interactions between the two groups, the ratio should be no more than two speakers of one language to one speaker of the other language. The article didn’t state whether it mattered if one was the dominant language or the target language so as not to have one language dominate over another. Ongoing and continuous planning is the second relevant category under strand 5, program structure, which is identified as a component of a successful dual language program. Ongoing and continuous planning is included in this literature review as it relates to the planning and implementation of a DLIP. Strong planning processes should be in place to meet the goals of a dual language program. Planning for such goals include students’ bilingualism, biliteracy, multicultural competence, and improving students’ achievement (Corallo & McDonald, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Levine & Lezotte, 1995). Communication and program articulation should be vertical across grade levels and horizontal within grade levels, and should include scope, sequence, and alignment appropriate for each grade level in both languages (Montecel & Cortez, 2002). While these methods of communication and articulation are also relevant for monolingual programs, DLIPs must account for both languages. If the dual language program is a program within a larger school, then the dual language program planning should be school wide and not only include the dual language program teachers (Berman et al, 1995). If teachers do not engage in joint planning and curriculum development, school wide programming and reform is less effective (Castellano et al, 2002). The monolingual program teachers and the DLIP teachers should all be engaging in joint planning according to Berman et al. (1995). PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 33 The defining features and goals of a dual language program described by Christian (1996) and Lindholm-Leary (2005) were similar to those found by Gomez, Freeman and Freeman (2005) in their quantitative study of a 50:50 content model used in schools in the Rio Grande Valley. The researchers found these schools had the following goals: high academic achievement in two languages, biliteracy, and cross-cultural awareness among participating students. However, while Christian (1996) and Lindholm-Leary (2005) described both the 90:10 model and the 50:50 model, Gomez et al. (2005) described the success of a 50:50 content model. This particular model supports the academic and linguistic development of first language and second language learners from kindergarten through sixth grade by dividing the languages by subject, rather than by amount of time of instruction in each language. Gomez et al. (2005) acknowledged that effective dual language programs must be well planned and implemented, providing for adequate administrator, faculty, and resource support. Gomez et al. (2005) stated that schools select the 90:10 model, which places an early emphasis on the language other than English, in order to help compensate for the socially dominant power of English outside the school context. The 90:10 model is also popular with Anglo English speaking parents who want their child to become bilingual. Gomez et al. (2005) argued the 90:10 model serves native English speakers best, as research shows these students attain high levels of academic proficiency in two languages, thus being able to achieve the goals that many English language learners have tried to achieve in vain: bilingualism. Despite the success of the 90:10 model for native English speakers in a nation where English is the dominant language, if a school site doesn’t have enough native English speakers to balance a classroom, then the 50:50 content model is another option. Gomez et al. (2005) noted student makeup and geographical location help determine which model a school uses. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 34 The setting of the study was the Rio Grande Valley which is a 100-mile area on the southern tip of Texas along the US- Mexico border. The area was predominantly Mexican- American at the time of the study, and school districts served a large number of English language learners. The student demographics were 95% Hispanic, 82% were identified as low socio- economic status, and 41% were limited English proficient (LEP). Gomez et al (2005) found the 50:50 content model “to be an effective and successful dual language program”(p.153) to serve this population of students. The 50:50 content model they studied provided instruction in each subject area in one language except for language arts. Language Arts was taught in both languages to promote biliteracy and proficiency in both languages. However, pre-Kindergarten and kindergarten students were taught literacy in their primary language. Math was taught in English only. Science, Social Studies were taught in Spanish. Every grade level had bilingual learning centers to promote project-based discovery according to Gomez et al. (2005). The 50:50 content model was a whole school or whole district model and was not a strand of dual language program within a school. The schools studied by Gomez et al. (2005) also had a language of the day in which all administrators and faculty spoke only English or Spanish depending on the language of the day. In southern Texas where the model was used, the majority of the adults on campus were bilingual in English and Spanish. Gomez et al. (2005) looked at standardized test data from the 2002 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test, which had a high percentage of Spanish speaking English language learners in a 50:50 content model program. This data was from two school districts, which included five school sites with the 50:50 Content model. The year 2003, when data became available, is significant for third grade test data as this was the first year third graders took the TAKS. These students had participated in a 50:50 content model program since PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 35 kindergarten, and the researchers were interested in seeing if their scores were in the proficient range for English and math. These school districts were chosen because of their high Spanish speaking student populations and the researchers’ interest in validating the 50:50 model when there is a lack of native English speaking student in the makeup of the student body. The students in the study were 99% Hispanic, 91% were economically disadvantaged, and approximately 35% were identified as limited English proficient. The data represented 240 students from the two different school districts and five participating schools. Of the 117 Spanish-dominant students tested, 103 (88%) met the third grade reading standards on the TAKS. Of the 56 English- dominant students tested, 51 (91%) met the standard. For all 173 third graders tested, 154 (89%) met the third grade reading standard. For math, of the 103 Spanish-dominant who tested, 89 (86%) met the math standard on the TAKS. There were 56 English-dominant students who participated in the study who took the TAKS, and 53 (95%) of them met the math standard. Out of the 142 students who took the math TAKS, 89% were proficient on the third grade math test. The researchers attributed the high percentage of proficiency to the 50:50 model in preparing students for the TAKS. There are several limitations to this study. The TAKS test only provides a snapshot of student performance on one particular day. The researchers did not examine differences between pre- and post-test measures so there are many internal validity threats that minimize the researchers’ ability to attribute the achievement test data to the 50:50 content model. In order to have a more valid finding, a longitudinal examination of the data as well as comparison groups would need to be included in the study design. Also, the TAKS does not evaluate written work in either language. Meeting the TAKS standard of proficiency only requires answering a few more than half of the questions correctly. In order to ensure that the model is promoting biliteracy in PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 36 content area knowledge in English and Spanish, Spanish test results need to be analyzed. And finally, the TAKS is limited as a measure, because it only assesses reading and math standards in English. An empirical study conducted by April Linton (2004) distinguishes between the terms dual language immersion programs (DLIP) and Bilingual Education Programs. Linton’s (2004) article described the growing popularity of dual language programs, which enable both native English speakers as well as English language learners to achieve biliteracy, in contrast to earlier bilingual programs which served English language learners with the objective of becoming proficient in English, not necessarily maintaining their native language. Linton’s (2004) study looked at DLIPs that group native Spanish-speakers with native English-speakers. The goals of this model of DLIP are for all students to attain bilingual proficiency, high academic achievement, and cross-cultural awareness. Linton’s (2004) description of DLIP goals was consistent with Christian’s (1996) and Lindholm-Leary’s (2005) as stated earlier in this literature review. The purpose of Linton’s study was to examine under what circumstances or contextual condition parents and educators value bilingualism enough to see to it that children attain or maintain it. Linton (2004) asserted “Schools are a primary vehicle for the transmission of culture and a sense of national identity. They also serve as the gateway to participation in the political and economic arena” (p.3). Under this premise, the languages used and valued in schools send a powerful message for larger social structure meaning of language use. Linton (2004) defined the DLIP model as one with a classroom makeup of half native English speakers and half of students with the same language minority background. Classroom teachers provide instruction in English and the second language and place equal social value and significance on both. Linton (2004) PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 37 defined DLIP as a program that promotes bilingualism and cross-cultural awareness. DLIPs, according to Linton (2004), are focused on achievement and are not considered remedial. The DLIP is not to be confused with bilingual education, which was a model that arose from the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1965 aimed at improving poor school performance of immigrant, non-English speaking children. Congress passed the BEA in 1968 to help transition immigrant children with limited English to regular classrooms with the goal of becoming proficient in English, not preserving and capitalizing on their native language. Essentially bilingual programs do not always produce bilingual and biliterate students. Given DLIP’s divergence from the way bilingual education has been officially implemented in this country since the passage of BEA, Linton (2004) examined under what demographic and geographic conditions we find DLIPs implemented. This question is relevant to this literature review because dual language programs are not legally mandated and exist in large part due to the efforts of individual school administrators, parents, teachers, and community members who get them started, plan for them, and make them work. If these stakeholders don’t value bilingualism, DLIPs are in danger of not being proposed and implemented. In order to carry out the study, Linton (2004) defined and tested several models of the influence of demographic, economic, and social context on the likelihood that a school district will adopt the dual language option. The study focused exclusively on Spanish-English programs, as Spanish-speakers are the largest non-English group in the United States. Linton’s (2004) inquiry included data from U.S. public school districts and the metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The MSAs include demographics and voting statistics. The units of analysis in the study were school districts that served at least 1,000 students with at least 3% coming from Spanish speaking homes. The statistics Linton (2004) used about Dual Language programs came PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 38 from the Center of Applied Linguistics (CAL, 2001). Data describing the demographics of school districts and the areas they serve came from the National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES) 1990 School District Data Book (SDDB). Linton (2004) also looked at bilinguals’ and Hispanics’ relative income and status using the 1990 1-percent PUMS (Ruggles and Sobek, 1997). Voting statistics came from the County and City Data Book (1998 & 1994) with county level figures aggregated up to the MSA/PMSA level when necessary. Linton (2004) defined the variable for ‘Hispanics Political Influence’ by using Wayne Senatoro’s (1999) index of “Latino institutional resources,”which is a composite measure that encompasses voters and elected officials. Another independent variable Linton (2004) examined was laws regarding Official English Laws and anti-bilingual education laws in force or under consideration. She looked at lists compiled by James Crawford (2000), the organization English First (2001), and Raymond Tatalovich (1995). Although not specifically stated in the article, I believe she examined these laws, as DLIPs existed and thrived, despite anti immigration and English only legislation. Linton was exploring factors that influence a district’s decision to offer DLIPs. Her study found parents with a college education were enrolling their children in DLIPs, even though they themselves did not speak Spanish, the target language in this study. State-level data on whether there was an anti-bilingual education law in force or under construction came from newspaper reports. The dependent variable was school districts that reported having at least one Spanish-English dual language program at the start of the 2001- 2002 school year. The findings of Linton’s (2004) study are significant to this review of literature as they help define dual language immersion programs contextually and socially. She found DLIPs are more likely to exist in larger districts, urban settings, and where the Spanish-speaking portion of the student population is sizeable but not overwhelming, where there are enough Spanish and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 39 English speakers to balance the classrooms. The proportion of parents with a Bachelor’s degree or higher increases the odds that a school district will offer a dual-language program, as does the proportion of mothers who do not work full time. Linton (2004) found observable economic rewards for bilingualism do not significantly influence the decision to adopt the dual-language option, and high-SES Hispanics, according to the statistics analyzed, were not driving the dual- language movement. Similarly, politically active Hispanics’ focus on schooling has been broader and its emphasis on education in general and not focused on Spanish language maintenance. Noteworthy are Linton’s (2004) findings on state-level bilingual ordinances, which were positively related to dual-language programs in the schools. On the other hand Official English referenda and high Republican voting were non significant. Also, anti-bilingual education laws and dual-language programs were positively related. Again, despite anti immigration and English only legislation, DLIPs flourished as parents sought out these programs. For example, despite California’s Proposition 227 requiring teachers to instruct English language learners in English for the majority of the day with the provision of removing bilingual instruction, Linton (2004) stated there was little effect on the DLIPs already in existence. In other words, despite the existence of English referenda, DLIPs were still offered by school districts. Linton’s (2004) findings help define DLIP program characteristics socially and demographically. Linton’s (2004) findings are also significant to this literature review because this study focuses on the planning and implementing of a DLIP in a school district. Noteworthy is the potential for social change in the form of a linguistic shift and the messages about what it means to be American. School administrators and parents who are future-oriented and are advocates of DLIP initiatives will more likely offer an opportunity for all students to become bilingual, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 40 biliterate, and bicultural within a school system, something that until recently, has promoted the opposite. In another study that sought to define dual language immersion programs and differentiate the term DLIP from bilingual education, Griselda Pena’s (2002) study examined the ambiguity in defining terms within the field of bilingual education. In order to assess teachers’ knowledge or confusion over terms regarding bilingual education, Pena (2002) surveyed ten teachers from a New York City elementary school. The author did not provide information on how the school was chosen for her study. Teachers were asked questions about the following terms: Transitional Bilingual Education Program, English Immersion, English as a Second Language, and Two-way Bilingual Education or Dual Language Program. The elementary school where the teachers worked defined its program as a Transitional Bilingual Program and English as a Second Language. There was confusion amongst the staff about their own program title. Pena (2002) used a definition established by Rebecca Freeman (1998) and defined a Transitional Bilingual Program as one that provides instruction for some subjects in the students’ native language but a certain amount of each day is spent on developing English skills. Classes are made up of students who share the same native language. Pena’s (2002) survey produced several noteworthy findings such as: nine out of ten teachers strongly agreed that there is a language that dominates instruction in a bilingual class, four out of ten could define which program the school used, eight out of ten strongly agreed that Transitional Bilingual Programs allow students to become literate in both languages, and five out of ten strongly agreed that students who speak neither Spanish nor are proficient in English have been misplaced in a Spanish/English Bilingual class. Pena’s (2002) survey indicates a need to clearly define and distinguish between terms relating to bilingual education. Without a clear definition and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 41 understanding of the goals of each program model, planning and implementation will be hindered. The following table is a compilation of characteristics identified by the authors in this section of the literature review. The characteristics come from the literature and help the reader understand not only the defining features of a DLIP, but the necessary elements in planning and implementing a DLIP. Table 1. Factors That Promote the Planning & Implementation of a DLIP Assessment & Accountability • Encourage high literacy expectations in both languages • Plan for systematic data collection to make informed changes about instruction • Assess for understanding and comprehension in both languages Lindholm-Leary (2005) Curriculum • Provide same core curriculum as other students receive in both languages • Provide quality language arts instruction in both languages • Ensure curriculum reflects and values students’ cultures • Ensure horizontal and vertical alignment across grade levels and content Lindholm-Leary (2005) Christian (1996) Instructional Practices • Ensure cooperative learning strategies • Ensure language input is comprehensible, interesting, and of sufficient quantity for students to make meaning Lindholm-Leary (2005) Montecel & Cortez (2002) Staff Quality • Recruiting qualified personnel with bilingual credentials and multicultural awareness • Ensure monolinguals understand language acquisition and cultural heritage of language minority students Lindhom-Leary (2005) Pena (2002) Professional Development • Plan for teachers to meet regularly to plan lessons and work Lindholm-Leary (2005) Pena (2002) PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 42 cooperatively • Seek relationships with other schools and districts to collaborate Program Structure & Model • Plan for target language to be at least 50% of the day-to a maximum of 90% in primary grades & English to be used at least 10% of the time • Plan for program to be additive bilingual environment were all students have the opportunity to learn a second language and maintain their first language • Plan for program toprovide 4 to 6 years of bilingual instruction to participating students • Ensure classrooms have a balance of students from the target language and English who participate in learning together Lindholm-Leary (2005) Christian (1996) Family & Community Involvement • Collaboration between schools and families to promote crosscultural awareness amongst parents • Commitment over the long term to stay in the program Lindholm-Leary (2005) Support • Provide mentors and training in the DLIP model • Connect and link teachers from K- 8 to collaborate and plan for curriculum and instruction Lindholm-Leary (2005) Linton (2004) Pena (2002) Established Goals • Provide a different way of transmitting positive bilingual social identity • Plan programs for future, global skills oriented outcomes such as second language courses • Provide Opportunity for all students to become bilingual and biliterate within a school community which usually produces the opposite Christian (1996) Lindholm-Leary (2005) Gomez, Freeman & Freeman (2005) Linton (2004) Thus far, this section has defined and distinguished between different terms and programs relating to dual language immersion programs. The literature defined two-way immersion as synonymous with dual language immersion programs. The classroom makeup in these programs combines native English speakers with native speakers of the target language or minority PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 43 language. Dual language immersion programs adopt different models: the 90:10 model and 50:50 model which define the amount of English and target language instruction students receive during the school day are the most common. Dual language immersion programs often exist within a school that also has English only classrooms. Researchers have distinguished between these two-way immersion programs and bilingual education programs. Bilingual programs and dual language immersion programs have different historical connotations as well as different goals. Bilingual education programs came out of the Bilingual Education Act in an effort to assist English language learners in acculturating and gaining English proficiency not necessarily with the goal of maintaining the student’s first language. Dual language immersion programs, on the other hand, are additive and aim to achieve biliteracy and cross-cultural education for both the English language learner, as well as the native English speaker. The literature also revealed how dual language immersion programs are gaining popularity, as they seek to eliminate social and linguistic barriers. The following section will expand on the rationale behind dual language immersion programs specifically. Goals and Rationale for DLIPs According to the literature reviewed for this study, there are two reasons for implementing a Dual Language Immersion Program. The first is to provide exposure for English language learners to native English speakers by placing them in the same classroom. When English language learners are learning alongside native English speakers, their English language acquisition is accelerated and their scores on achievement tests are higher than those in remedial programs, which separate them from native English speakers during the school day (Thomas & Collier, 2002; Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010). Earlier in the literature review, Christian’s (1996) research was used to identify features of DLIPs. Her work also examined the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 44 effectiveness of the DLIPs in educating nonnative English speakers, which is one of the goals of a DLIP, while maintaining their native language as well as developing second language skills in English–speaking students. Christian (1996) asserted two-way immersion programs are an effective way to educate both language minority and majority students as students receive instruction in, and through, two languages. Along with both student groups acquiring a second language in a two-way immersion program comes the intent to promote cross-cultural understanding and appreciation. Christian (1996) argued that two-way immersion programs facilitate an environment in which positive attitudes toward both languages and both cultures support full bilingual proficiency for both native and nonnative speakers of English. The second rationale for dual language immersion programs is they are considered enrichment, and not remedial (Thomas & Collier, 1997). The term enrichment stems from the student makeup of native English speakers, who are in the program acquiring a second minority or target language. Additionally, the English language learner group is acquiring English as a second language, while adding academic literacy in the native minority language. In both cases, there is rigor and high expectations rather than a “watered down” curriculum. Previously in this chapter, different models of language programs were defined and described. Dual language immersion programs were defined as an enrichment program, capitalizing on the primary languages of two linguistically different student groups. This section of the literature review examines the dual rationale: including native English speakers as supports and models for English language learners while providing target language student models for English speakers learning a second language, for implementing a DLIP. In a longitudinal study spanning over eighteen years, consisting of qualitative and quantitative research methods, Collier and Thomas (2004) analyzed the greatly varied PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 45 educational programs offered to linguistically and culturally diverse students in U.S. public schools as well as the academic achievements of these students. The quantitative part of their study analyzed over two million student records from registration centers, student information system databases, as well as testing databases. The researchers used a gap-closure model for their research, as they were interested in seeing how the same group of minority language students progressed over time compared to their native English peers. Collier and Thomas (2004) asserted gap closure research gave a clearer picture of how the same group of English language learners were progressing over time, compared to cross-sectional studies that compare the same grade level over time, but are made up of different students. The researchers analyzed long-term databases from 1985 to 2004, from school districts in all regions of the U.S. They gathered student test data from 23 large and small school districts across 15 states representing all regions in urban, suburban, and rural contexts. Houston Independent School District was the largest district studied with 210,000 students (54% Hispanic, 33% African American, 10% Euro American, and 75% on free and reduced lunch). The authors do not specify how they identified the schools or collected the student data, but they note they sampled in order for all regions in the U.S. to be represented. The qualitative part of the study included classroom and school visits as well as in-depth interviews with central office administrators, school board members, principals, teachers, and community members. Collier and Thomas (2004) examined data from a) students who had been in a one-way language immersion class with English language learners placed in a classroom with peers who have the same heritage but were monolingual in English and receiving instruction in English as well as the heritage language, Spanish, and b) data from two-way dual language programs (or DLIPs). PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 46 After studying English as a second language courses, mainstream English classes, one- way, and two-way immersion programs to assist English language learners with their English language acquisition and understanding of grade level content areas, the findings indicated both one-way and two-way immersion programs led to grade-level and above grade-level achievement in a second language. These were the only two programs to fully close the gap. Collier and Thomas (2004) found it took six to eight years for ELLs to reach grade level in their second language, and the only programs that were able to close this gap between native English and nonnative English speakers were one-way and two-way immersion programs. The qualitative findings showed all stakeholders felt they were part of a special program and teachers saw a difference in their students’ responsiveness and engagement in the classrooms of one-way and two-way immersion programs. Principals of one-way and two-way immersion programs stayed in their positions for many years and described their work as life changing and full of joy. The article showed the two-way immersion program slightly outscored the one-way immersion program at each grade level. However, both programs showed student participants at or above grade level on English and Spanish assessments. Collier and Thomas (2004) laid out implications for policy and practice from their longitudinal study. They asserted English language learners should be assessed in their native language as well as in English. If students are only assessed in English, true academic achievement and understanding of material will be underestimated. Based on their findings, English language learners should not be segregated and separated from English speakers as their data suggest the achievement gap is closed when non-native English speakers and native English speakers are combined in two-way immersion programs. While the study found that one-way PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 47 immersion programs also closed the achievement gap, the scores were highest in the two-way programs. In an earlier study from 1997, Thomas and Collier outlined the rationale for two-way immersion programs as a means to tap into the power of linguistic diversity. They explained the historical context of English language learners as being a problematic issue to deal with in American public schools. English language learners were seen as having deficits (Collier and Thomas, 2004). Thus, ELLs were placed in remedial English classes and seldom mixed with their native English peers. However, when DLIPs are implemented, the programs are viewed as enrichment, and capitalize on students’ linguistic and cultural experiences as a resource for discovery learning (Chiang, 1994; Thomas and Collier, 1997). Enrichment programs such as two-way immersion programs also provide a stimulus and academic challenge for all student groups regardless of their first language. Further, students gain cross-cultural understandings in addition to a second language, which will better serve them in an increasingly global economy (Thomas and Collier, 1997). The authors state some conclusions are drawn from previous publications and they had limited space in this current publication. Therefore, not all parts of the study, such as research questions, are mentioned (Thomas and Collier, 1997). Another quantitative study conducted by Lindholm-Leary and Block (2010) analyzed how 659 Hispanic students in dual language programs in segregated or predominantly Hispanic/low socio-economic status schools were performing on standardized tests compared to school and statewide comparison groups. The researchers took test results from English language learner and native-English speaking Hispanic students in four schools in three districts representing two geographic areas in California. The data presented in the research article come from two separate studies. In Study 1, the schools sampled had to meet the requirement of having PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 48 a student population of at least 66% defined as low socio-economic status (SES) and 80% Hispanic students. Three schools were selected that met this criteria and Study 1 included 193 Hispanic students in 4 th through 5 th grade in DLIP schools. For Study 2, the researchers had already collected the data from a school that met these criteria and the pertinent data were used for this article. Study 2 was comprised of 466 students in grades 4 – 6 from one school. The DLIPs in all schools used the 90:10 model with Spanish as the target language. Initial literacy instruction was given in the target language of Spanish even for the English proficient (EP), non- Spanish speakers. Students in the mainstream English classes received all of their instruction in English. In order to be included in the study, both groups of students, DLIP and mainstream, had to have at least three years of schooling in the same setting prior to gathering data. The researchers assessed student achievement by looking at the passing rates on the English Language Arts (ELA) and Math subtest of the California Standardized Test (CST), which was a criterion-referenced state assessment in English. A student score of Proficient or Advanced on the CST was considered a passing score. A scale score of 350 was considered proficient on the CST. Students in the DLIP setting in Study 2 had CST data, but they also administered the Aprenda, a norm-referenced standardized achievement test assessing reading and math achievement in Spanish. The results of the tests showed the English Proficient (EP) students in Study 1 performed higher than their EP peers in mainstream classes on the fourth and fifth grade language arts CST. No pre-test data was used. The English proficient students enrolled in the dual language immersion program had more educated parents. The article stated 64% of participating parents with children in DLIPs had at least some college education. This is in contrast to 39% of parents of English proficient students, in regular mainstream classes, reported some college education. In PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 49 Study 1, 38-50% of the dual EP students reached proficient or advanced levels, compared to 27- 42% of their EP peers in mainstream English only classes who scored proficient or advanced. In Study 2, twice as many EP students achieved the passing rate in the dual language program compared to the mainstream program (63% vs. 35%, 54% vs. 19%, 60% vs. 23%) for grades four, five, and six respectively. The DLIP scores in Studies 1 and 2 at Grades 5-6 compared positively to the 50-52% figures for all Grades 5-6 EP students in California and far exceeded the 26-29% passing rates for all Hispanic fifth and sixth graders statewide. Initial English language learners in DLIP classes also passed the English language arts CST at a slightly higher rate than their peers in mainstream settings; 33% vs. 24% and 22% vs. 20%, in Study 1. In Study 2, initial English language learners also passed the English language arts CST at a slightly higher rate than their peers in mainstream setting; 17% vs. 13%, 27% vs. 18%, 31% vs. 26%. The fifth grade dual language ELLs’ passing rate was close to the statewide rate of 29% for California Hispanics, which includes many students whose first language is English. Furthermore, the passing rate of 27% (Lindholm-Leary and Block, 2010 p. 51) for dual language ELLs was above the passing rate of 13% for all ELLs in California. In Study 1, in mathematics, by fifth grade the DLIP students surpassed their mainstream peers 67% vs. 25% in scoring Proficient or Advanced on the CST. This result was replicated at all three grade levels in Study 2 in which scores for third, fourth, and fifth were 40% vs. 20%, 34% vs. 12%, and 44% to 20% respectively. The researchers also noted, in the case of the English language arts scores on the CST, the scores for the ELLs in a DLIP increased more rapidly than for the English proficient students, indicating a closing of the achievement gap. The gap widened between mainstream English proficient and mainstream English language learner students with mainstream ELL students experiencing less success on the achievement tests. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 50 In addition to the quantitative analysis of achievement test data in the two studies, the researchers were also interested in students’ responses to surveys about cross-cultural understandings. In order to find out if students were acquiring cross-cultural skills and understandings, students filled out attitude surveys, responding to Likert scale items. The researchers found that dual language students had consistently higher scores when compared to mainstream students. The statements to which students responded on the surveys were the following: learning another language would help me get along better with others (M= 3.8 –Dual Language Students vs. 3.3 – Mainstream students for English Proficient ELLs, M=3.7 vs. 3.4 for ELLs), I would like to become friends with someone who mostly speaks a non-English language (M=3.2 vs. 2.5 for EP, M= 3.0 vs. 2.9 for ELLs), and I like to play with others no matter what they look like (M=3.5 vs. 3.2 for EP, M=3.4 vs. 3.2 for EP, M=3.4 vs. 3.2 for ELLs). The authors do not specify the scale of measurement. Together, the data collected from both statistical and survey studies consistently showed Hispanics participating in a DLIP setting achieved comparably or higher than their mainstream peers in English language arts and mathematics. The researchers also noted a major concern of many English speaking parents is their English proficient child, placed in a 90:10 model, who normally receives literacy instruction in Spanish until the end of Grade 2, will fall behind their English speaking peers in a mainstream classroom receiving all instruction in English. However, the data collected by Lindholm-Leary and Block (2010) demonstrates participation in a DLIP appears to be positive for academic achievement and cross-cultural understanding for both English dominant and English learner students. Lindholm-Leary and Block (2010) noted there could be other factors contributing to the higher test scores of the English proficient groups. Factors such as parent education levels and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 51 higher SES levels may contribute to the higher test scores of EP students. Additionally, teacher quality, parent school involvement, and school wide support of programs were other variables the researchers could not account for. As such, it’s important to use these findings cautiously, because without pre-test data and the use of other variables to control for, this study’s findings are open to threats to internal validity. Despite the possibility of other factors influencing academic achievement for students in DLIP settings, the researchers reported high levels of achievement of DLIP students, both ELL and EP, on the mathematics section of the CST. The researchers also raised the issue of cognitive advantages resulting from bilingualism. The question of whether there are advantages to bilingualism is not new and has been addressed in other studies. Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2005), for example, found higher than expected participation rates and good performance in secondary-school college preparatory mathematics classes among students who had participated in elementary DLIPs. Lindholm-Leary and Borsato’s (2005) study found the high participation in advanced mathematics classes in high school was a result of positive student attitudes and good academic preparation overall. Overall, these studies indicate that students in DLIPs, ELL or EP, outperform their mainstream English peers on tests in English and Mathematics. While we can’t confidently attribute these findings to the programs themselves, this data is still useful to know and understand, because at the very least, the programs have not been shown to have negative consequences for the students enrolled. The rationale behind planning for and implementing a Dual Language Immersion Program is necessary to establish because, as the literature has revealed, it is critical to communicate the rationale for pursuing DLIPs to stakeholders, such as community members and staff. dual language immersion programs serve students learning English as well as native- PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 52 English speakers learning a target language. In addition to communicating the definition and identified features of a DLIP, along with the program’s goals and rationale, it is important for all involved to understand what a change or implementation process will entail. The following section reviews literature based on theories of change processes and leadership within an organization. For the purposes of this study, a school district seeking to implement a new DLIP is considered the organization. Theories of Change Processes and Leadership The implementation of a new program or practice in education, whether at the district or school level, requires vision along with well articulated planning, and a team of leaders to carry out the change (Senge, 1990). When a school district implements a new program, a change to the school system occurs. Thus, an understanding of theories such as learning organizations (Senge, 1990), change processes (Fullan, 2005), distributed leadership (Elmore, 2000), school leadership (Marzano, 2005), and steps for leading change (Kotter, 2012) lay the groundwork and enable us to understand how a district implements a new program such as a dual language immersion program. This section examines theories of change processes through an examination of the work of Senge (1990), Fullan (2005), Elmore (2000), Marzano (2005), and Kotter (2012) and the type of leadership required to successfully implement a new program. This section on theories of change processes and leadership will be divided into five sections, each one devoted to the authors mentioned above. It will highlight the importance of an organization being learning oriented, creating a learning community, distributing the leadership so that different stakeholders take on leadership roles, recognizing the different kinds and degrees of change, and the steps to anchor change. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 53 Peter Senge Central to successfully navigating change is the need for an organization to be learning oriented. According to Senge (1990), there is a current need for understanding how organizations learn, and accelerating that learning is more important today than ever before as the world becomes more dynamic and interdependent. Only by continually engaging in inquiry can organizations know what is in demand and how they can work to meet those demands. Inquiry leads to learning, as members of an organization strive to initiate a new program, which is a part of the implementation process. School organizations recognize this need as curriculum and school programs try to keep pace with an unpredictable and global job market. Senge calls for a way to integrate thinking and acting at all levels of an organization, as well as increased adaptability amongst staff, in order to implement change. Learning is a part of the process of change. Learning and change go hand in hand. Without learning, there will be no change. This section will further explore Senge’s theory of building learning organizations and its relation to organizational change, specifically in the context of implementing dual language immersion programs. Senge (1990) described the most successful organizations as learning organizations, which are adaptive, and focus on what Senge calls “generative learning.” Using this case study as an example, lasting change depends on a group of implementers’ interest in learning about a new program, examining its feasibility when applied to their own district, and then moving forward by furthering educating stakeholders involved. He believed our traditional view of leaders as individual heroes is too individualistic and non-systemic for today’s organizations. In a school district, looking to implement a new program such as a DLIP, leadership of the organization is key to implementation. In Senge’s (1990) learning organization, leaders are PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 54 designers, teachers, and stewards; roles that require new skills: the ability to build shared vision, and to foster more systemic patterns of thinking. Leaders are responsible for learning as an organization’s workforce is expected to continually learn and adapt. In order for an organization to move in the new direction of a learning organization, Senge (1990) described his principle of creative tension. An organization begins building creative tension by seeing clearly where it wants to be: establishing a vision. Then, the organization tells the truth about its current reality versus where it wants to go. This gap between the current reality and the end goal generates a natural tension. Senge (1990) theorized creative tension can be resolved in two ways: by raising the current reality toward the vision or by lowering the vision to current reality. However, without a vision, there is no creative tension and creative tension cannot come from vision alone. An accurate starting point and assessment of the organization must be understood before momentum for change can build. Leading through creative tension is different from solving problems. Creative tension, stemming from what the organization wants to create, while examining the current reality, makes the motivation intrinsic and the impending change more palatable. School districts contemplating the implementation of dual language immersion programs must look at their school’s current programs, assess them, and decide how to move forward with a new program. According to Senge’s theory of creative tension, a district needs to analyze its current programs for English language learners and native English speakers, to make the change feel urgent yet manageable, and determine how to move forward behind a vision encompassing a dual language immersion program. As stated earlier, the two rationales for implementing a DLIP are to provide exposure for English language learners to native English speakers, and to provide a foreign language enrichment program for native English speakers. Thus, the school district, as an PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 55 organization, may find the implementation of a DLIP a way to ease the tension of how to improve English language learner instruction while simultaneously providing second language instruction for English speakers. Senge defined three critical roles the leader of a learning organization must take on: designer, teacher, and steward. As the designer, the leader builds a shared vision and fosters systemic patterns of thinking. As the teacher, the leader helps everyone in the organization gain more insightful views of current reality by restructuring their view of reality, seeing beyond superficial conditions, and instead, into underlying causes of problems. In a learning organization, such as a school district, the leader of the learning organization can influence people to view reality in terms of events, patterns of behavior, and systemic structure. Most leaders in learning organizations are reactive, and rarely generative. Systemic, structural explanations address the question of ‘What causes the patterns of behavior?’ The leader of the organization is not only the teacher, but the student as well, moving through inquiry, learning, and ultimately implementing change through the process. Senge described leaders in learning organizations as those who teach people throughout the organization to pay attention to all levels: events, patterns of behavior, and systemic structure. Senge uses a quote from Lao Tsu, The wicked leader is her who the people despise. The good leader is he who the people revere. The great leader is he who the people say, “We did it ourselves.” Senge made the point this is a new type of leadership style in which all are trained and equipped to examine the learning organization as that which sees leaders as stewards. Senge described the leader of a learning organization as a systems thinker who is able to see interrelationships, can move beyond blame, focuses on high areas of leverage, and avoids PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 56 symptomatic solutions. The leader who is a systems thinker and sees interrelations does not react to isolated events, but looks at change as a process with interconnected components. Senge stated individuals tend to blame each other or outside circumstances for organizational problems when instead, the problems arise from poorly designed systems. By building creative tension, and examining an organization’s current status, then deciding how to move towards a collective vision, individuals look within themselves rather than assign blame outside; ultimately the organization builds capacity within itself through learning. By building capacity within the members of the organization, such as teachers in a school, members look within to make improvement to the school organization. This idea of self- evaluation relates to systems thinking and encourages small, well-focused actions, which can produce significant and lasting changes. Making small, well-focused actions is referred to as an area of high leverage; where a change with minimal effort would lead to lasting, significant improvement. Lastly, Senge described a difficult act of leadership is to avoid intervening in managerial affairs and not fix symptoms of problems, but rather look at the underlying causes of problems. Senge warned the consequences for organizations without leaders who possess systems thinking skills can be devastating as organizations will be paralyzed and unable to collectively move towards the vision. In summary, a school district in the process of dual language immersion program implementation may benefit from Senge’s theory of developing a learning organization through creative tension under the leadership of one who is a systems thinker. Finally, as the steward, the leader serves others first and operates with the larger mission or purpose in mind. According to Senge, leaders who are good stewards engage in building learning organizations that see themselves as contributing to an even larger purpose beyond their PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 57 very own organization. This sense of purpose and contribution to a greater good is also reflected in the goals of dual language immersion programs, because one of the desired outcomes is for students to be globally competent with a multicultural appreciation (Christian, 1996; Lindholm- Leary, 2005). Programs implemented in schools serve a long-term purpose. Senge’s idea of a leader being a good steward and looking beyond the current reality is in line with the goals of DLIPs: to foster cross cultural, bilingual, and biliterate students, who will be able to navigate the global market place. Michael Fullan In order to build the kind of learning organizations Senge recommended, leaders are required to carry the torch. Fullan (2001) proposed new ways of looking at problems as opportunities, and realizing change cannot be mandated. His conceptualization encouraged individuals and groups to have equal power, thus designing schools as learning communities. Fullan asserted district leadership must understand that there is a change process, which requires a corresponding capacity building amongst staff in order to prepare them for the new system or program. Fullan wrote, “…when district leadership understands the change process and corresponding capacity building, they appreciate what needs to be done. They in turn foster collective moral purpose, organize the structure and roles most effectively, provide ongoing leadership development for those in key roles, and formulate strategies where schools learn from each other” (p.2). Fullan’s theory of change as a process will be explored in this section, as it relates to implementing a new program such as a dual language immersion program. Michael Fullan wrote about leadership and change, and concurs with Senge’s idea that change cannot come about from one individual leader, but rather a leader who knows how to build collective leaders within the organization. Fullan’s premise to bringing about sustainable PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 58 change through the implementation of a new program is an organization does not need a few good leaders, but rather leaders that develop team-based leadership in others. In order for an organization to implement change, Fullan proposed two ideas: 1) the need for system reform, which he calls the tri-level solution and 2) leadership as the key driver. The tri-level solution begins with Fullan’s term, the school community level. In order for lasting change to occur, school capacity or the collective power of a school’s staff to work together is key to success. The knowledge, skills, and disposition of teachers on site, as well as their relationship with each other and the principal are necessary to implement change. The next level up is the school district. By implementing policy and designing programs, a school district can produce greater school capacity, empowering energetic leaders who create an energizing work place. If implementation is done poorly, the process can inhibit capacity building. Poorly designed or poorly planned implementation processes can actually have negative effects on capacity building. Fullan developed his theory as a result of empirical work he had conducted. Through Fullan’s work at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, more than a dozen districts were studied to understand how a district is able to “raise the bar and close the gap of student achievement.” Fullan’s research found district leaders with a coherent and driving conceptualization along with a collective moral purpose were able to bring about lasting change. District leadership is key to placing school principals who are energizing at school sites. In addition to the shared purpose, districts that were under leadership that understood the change process were the ones able to build lateral leadership capacity amongst their staffs, and able to make lasting change. Fullan (2004) connected the school community level to the school district level and asserts the two “feed on each other in mutually reinforcing ways” (p. 2). As districts plan for implementation of a dual language immersion PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 59 program, they must be mutually supportive of school sites. Fullan also found districts that looked at the knowledge base of their staff first, examined closely practices that needed to be changed, and recognized conflict as part of the change process were able to see district-wide success measured by gains in student achievement. The third level in Fullan’s tri-level solution is the state level, which, according to Fullan, is the most complex as there are so many political influences. According to Fullan (2004), these influences “focus on accountability rather than to integrate accountability and capacity building” (p. 3). Fullan asserted, “top leaders: governors, state superintendents, and other senior policymakers must begin to focus their efforts and take capacity building seriously” (p.3). Resources should be allocated to developing leadership. Leadership, funded by the state, builds capacity at the district and school level to increase capacity of teachers and principals as they work together towards higher levels of student achievement. As California’s English learner population continues to grow, and school leaders at the site, district, and state level seek methods to best prepare students, capacity building at all personnel levels is worthy of examination. Fullan’s work examined large systems engaged in tri-level solutions for organizational reform. Included in the dozen districts were those in Ontario, Canada; South Australia; and Washington State where each is focusing on tri level reform and developing each level and their inter- relationships. Currently, more widespread and lasting change isn’t occurring as these three levels are often out of alignment. Finally, Fullan stated, change requires a lot of extra energy and motivation which energizing leaders make possible. Further, Fullan noted that hard work isn’t what tires people out, but rather negative work that doesn’t yield results for a common good. As a school district plans to implement a dual language immersion program, Fullan’s theory of PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 60 change as a process in which the load is distributed amongst several capable leaders, all empowering others in an effort to move collectively towards a common goal, which is often larger than the organization itself is useful to understand. Richard Elmore In order to effectively move through the process of change, as Fullan described, there must be multiple leaders in an organization to distribute the load of implementation. Similarly, Elmore (2000) described Fullan’s concept of shared leadership as distributed leadership. Distributed leadership theory comes from the recognition that the knowledge base necessary to implement a change may be too vast for one person. For example, a principal might not have the time, energy, or disposition to master the knowledge base for implementing a dual language immersion program. However, there may be others to assist and fill in knowledge gaps. Elmore examined distributed models of leadership rather than schools looking to one person for all of the answers. Elmore (2000) also used the term ‘servant leadership,’ which positions the leader at the center of an organization, rather than the top. By placing the leader at the center rather than the top, the leader is in contact with all aspects of the organization. If organizational change is what schools are seeking, then the leader must be centrally located and orchestrating leadership teams or groups, who are more likely to succeed in moving an organization forward, than one individual at the top of the organizational chart. Servant leadership also describes a leader who is in place to serve the organization as well as be a good steward of resources, while developing the skills of those within the organization. Organizational change is not the result of one or a few leaders but rather building the capacity of the organization’s individuals. Fullan used the term shared leadership while Elmore used the term distributed leadership to convey the idea of multiple leaders in an organization versus one sole leader making decision and implementing PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 61 change or policy. This section examines distributed leadership as it relates to the organization and its implementation of a dual language immersion program. Richard Elmore (2006), proposed successful change comes about when an organization 1) distributes the responsibility of leadership and 2) leaders adopt a practice of improvement. Like Fullan, Elmore (2006) stated the knowledge base one leader must possess regarding curriculum, instruction, assessment, and all other areas necessary to lead an organization, is too vast. Thus, large organizations, like school districts, must call on the use of distributed models of leadership as opposed to looking to one person as the provider for all leadership functions. Once a group of leaders has been identified, selecting what area of improvement to work on is what Elmore called “doing the right work.” Given that a school organization’s mission is first and foremost the education of students, “doing the right work” is a critical factor in improving student achievement. Along with distributed leadership and “doing the right work,” Elmore developed a model of school leadership practice consistent with his new theory of accountability. Elmore examined the role of leadership and accountability, and argued that classroom practices didn’t change or improve without developing explicit strategies and knowledge amongst teachers. This is his idea of reciprocal accountability. Elmore asserted leadership was the practice of improvement as school leaders were charged with changing or improving programs, in an effort to raise achievement. As leadership is a practice of improvement, according to Elmore (2006), it is not a personal attribute or characteristic of leaders, rather a collection of patterned actions, based on a body of knowledge, skill, and habits of mind that can be objectively defined, taught, and learned. Second, the practice of improvement must be based on a theory of action, which is a set of logically connected statements that connect the actions of leaders with their consequences for PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 62 quality and performance in the organization. Finally, Elmore was interested in practices that lead to school improvement. He defined school improvement by increases in quality and performance over time. This improvement necessitates a level of accountability. Elmore stated a school in which decisions around content and pedagogy are left at the classroom level, in which teachers have no relationship with each other around instructional practice and no discussion around evidence of student learning taking place is a school with low internal accountability. Elmore’s theory on distributive leadership and accountability can be seen in Lindholm- Leary’s (2005) defining characteristics of successful Dual Language Education Programs. As stated earlier in this review of literature, Lindholm-Leary (2005) identified the fifth strand in program structure as ongoing and continuous planning for teachers. Teachers need leaders to plan for teachers to evaluate student work as well as their own practice as a collective group. Elmore (2006) asserted, “high performance and quality are not a state but a point along a developmental continuum” (p. 10). Creating time for teachers to continuously plan, develop, and grow, something Lindhom-Leary (2005) identifies as a need in a DLIP, is also in line with Elmore’s idea that high performance is not a state but a continuum, which means there is a constant state of development. Learning, growth, and improvement are not static but rather, in constant motion. Further, Elmore stated, moving a school along this continuum of change and practice of improvement develops an internal accountability system, which builds capacity and develops leaders amongst teachers, ultimately sharing the leadership load. Elmore is a change and leadership theorist school districts can use to plan for implementation of a dual language immersion program, because he brings to light why a district may decide to implement for improvement of practices and raising achievement for all students. Elmore identified distributive PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 63 leadership, as a means to ensuring there is accountability within a system to make change happen successfully. Robert Marzano In addition to understanding the role of a leader and the need for an organization to foster an environment where change can proceed successfully, it’s also important to understand that there are different degrees and processes associated with change. When an organization looks to implement change, it’s important to recognize the distinction Marzano (2005) made between a first order and second order change. Marzano (2005) stated, in addition to planning, a distinction between first order and second order change must be recognized enabling the leader to anticipate the necessity of gradual and subtle change versus drastic and dramatic changes. The leader must understand the distinction between first and second order change, in order to best plan a course of action, as well as anticipate a staff’s ability to carry the load each level of change will bring. First-order change, described by Waters, Marzano, & McNulty (2004), is incremental change, and second order change, is described as deep change. In the case of dual language immersion programs, we are talking about deep change, second order change as the organization is changing its use of language for delivering instruction and assessments. Additionally, each year a new cohort of students moves up a grade level and begins a new implementation year. This creates a new program each year for at least six consecutive years. With each implementation year, the program anchors and holds the change. First and second order change theory is applicable to change at a district level as well as at a school site level. This section will describe the importance of making this distinction at a school site level enabling the principal to work effectively with staff and community members while implementing a new program. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 64 Marzano (2005) built his theory of effective leadership upon the work of other theorists such as Michael Fullan and Richard Elmore. Specifically, Marzano (2005) extends Elmore’s conclusion that leaders need to use his set of coordinated action steps to carry out the right work. Marzano (2005) builds upon Fullan’s work of change process by identifying 21 responsibilities a leader must take on in order to carry out a change process. These responsibilities are: affirmation, change agent, contingent rewards, communication, culture, discipline, flexibility, focus, ideals/beliefs, input, intellectual stimulation, involvement in curriculum, instruction, and assessment, knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, monitoring/evaluating, optimizer, order, outreach, relationships, resources, situational awareness, and visibility. In addition to the 21 responsibilities, Marzano also outlined a plan for effective school leadership. Marzano’s (2005) effective school leadership plan includes five steps: 1) develop a strong leadership team 2) distribute some responsibilities throughout the leadership team 3) select the right work 4) identify the order of magnitude implied by the selected work 5) match the management style to the order of magnitude of the change initiative. He applies leadership and change theory to school leadership. While the focus here is on the school level, these five steps are applicable to a district looking to implement a new program, such as a DLIP. The articles discussed earlier, such as Lindholm-Leary’s (2005) five categories for DLIP planning, one of which is establishing a school-wide shared vision and set of goals is similar to Marzano’s third: select the right work. Lindholm-Leary (2005) also state effective leadership is in place in order to move to a DLIP is similar to Marzano’s first step: develop a strong leadership team. Gomez (2005) also found effective DLIPs must be well planned and implemented, which is in line with Marzano’s call for identifying the order of magnitude of the change initiative. Leadership and change theory are visible in school change and implementation on DLIPs. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 65 Out of these 21 responsibilities, Marzano identified seven that are critical for second- order change to occur. Implementing a dual language immersion program would be considered a second-order change, as the change would affect current practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The seven critical traits for second-order change are: knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, optimizer, intellectual stimulation, change agent, monitoring/evaluating, flexibility, and ideals/beliefs. Marzano theorized his assessment of leadership qualities and distinction between first-order and second-order change will enable leaders to translate their vision and aspirations for schools and students into action plans that will not only change schools but the world. This is similar to Fullan’s description of an organization working with a larger purpose in mind. This idea is also in line with Elmore’s servant leadership. As schools seek to improve student achievement by building on primary language as well as prepare students for an increasingly global community, Marzano’s theories on leadership traits necessary for student achievement merit study. John P. Kotter Defining action steps for anchoring second order change comes from the work of John P. Kotter (2012) who built his eight steps to successfully accelerate change based on the work of leadership change theorists such as Fullan (2001) and Marzano et al. (2005). Kotter’s eight steps for leading change that will take hold in an organization and sustain second order change are relevant to this study as program planners and implementers can refer to the eight steps as path markers on their way to meeting their end goals. In this section I will outline and describe Kotter’s eight steps for accelerating and leading lasting change. I conclude this section with Kotter as the eight steps are based on previous theorists described and are also a visual guide for PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 66 school leaders to refer to. Kotter’s eight steps are visually represented in the conceptual framework at the end of this chapter. Kotter (2015) identified eight steps for leading change and succinctly states, “You can lead change. Here’s how to do it.” Kotter’s eight steps for organizational change are: 1. Create Sense of Urgency 2. Build Guiding Coalition 3. Form Strategic Vision and Initiatives 4. Communicate the Vision 5. Empower Action by Removing Barriers 6. Generate Short-Term Wins 7. Consolidate Gains and Sustain Acceleration 8. Anchor New Approaches and Institute Change These eight steps reflect Kotter’s (2015) latest work, which recognizes the process of change in organizations is accelerated and must be accounted for. Thus, the eight steps presented above include the word ‘acceleration.’ Kotter (2015) observed, “The rate at which our world is changing is increasing, but our ability to keep up with it is not.” The following describes Kotter’s eight steps to lead and accelerate lasting change. Creating a sense of urgency is the first step, as the organizational leaders must be able convince the stakeholders of the relevance and timeliness of the proposed change. Leaders must have buy in from their stakeholders to begin the forward movement. The sense of urgency is created by clearly communicating the problem or issues at hand. Kotter wrote this problem be communicated as an opportunity for change, similar to the work of Marzano (2005). Once the sense of urgency is established and stakeholders are behind the opportunity for change, the leader builds a guiding coalition composed of a team to continue PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 67 to bring in support. In a school organization, the team is comprised of teacher leaders and parent leaders. The work becomes teamwork, and not solely the work of the organizational leader, in line with Elmore’s (2000) work on distributive leadership and shared leadership. Through the efforts of the guiding coalition or leadership team, the vision and strategy is established. The team develops the strategic vision and initiatives. This work includes defining the vision statement, setting objectives and goals and then putting these elements into writing as well as communicating them to all stakeholders. Kotter emphasizes all stakeholders should be able to verbalize these goals if prompted to do so. This leads to the fourth step of communicating the vision. Communication is not limited to statements in print or verbal communication but also recognizable symbols and logos. Kotter also writes there must be excitement around this communication as stakeholders are made to feel they are part of a great opportunity ahead. The fifth step for change is to empower action by removing barriers. Kotter describes the leader’s role in this process is to remove inefficient hierarchies that may be acting as a barrier to the change process. The leader will need to anticipate these barriers as well as seek input from stakeholders as to what these may be in an antiquated organizational system. Once the process of change is moving along, the sixth step is to generate short-term wins. Kotter writes, “We are the molecules of results. They must be collected, categorized, and communicated, early and often, and energize your volunteers to drive change.” Kotter acknowledges leaders underestimate the large task and heavy load change reformers bear when setting out to anchor second order change. Thus, successes, no matter how small, must be communicated and celebrated to keep momentum going. This is how the leader moves to the seventh step and consolidates gains, which in turn sustains change. Kotter (2015) writes, “Change leaders must determine what can be done, every day, to stay the course towards the vision.” Work towards anchoring second order change is a PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 68 daily effort of motivating and inspiring stakeholders. Finally the eighth and final step is to anchor new approaches and institute change. Kotter (2015) writes, To ensure new behaviors are repeated over the long-term, it’s important that you define and communicate the connections between these behaviors and the organization’s success. Stakeholders need to understand their actions and behaviors are resulting in lasting positive change. The team must see the big opportunity, be a part of the opportunity, and experience results in order for the change to anchor and last. Kotter presents the eight steps for lasting organizational change as a team effort led by a group of adopters, inspired by a leader who believes in the vision, and can produce and celebrate tangible victories. Understanding theories related to systems of change and implementation enable school districts to analyze their organizations, plan for the implementation process, look for leaders amongst their teams, and evaluate knowledge gaps. In addition to evaluating knowledge gaps amongst staff, the district should understand the assumptions of staff and context within which staff operate. Senge (1990) describes the importance of understanding what we, as an organization, “carry in our heads” (p.13), and how these perceptions influence our actions. Leaders can address these perceptions amongst staff to create a cultural shift ready for problem solving. Change and leadership theorists Senge (1990), Fullan (2005), Elmore (2000), Marzano (2005), and Kotter (2015) provide school organizations with applicable frameworks for implementing a dual language immersion program. This section on theories of organizational change and organizational leadership applied these five theorists to the implementation of a dual language immersion program. Together, these theories provide districts with a framework when PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 69 implementing a new program, such as a dual language immersion program. Districts must be cognizant of these theories because understanding organizational change and leadership provide a foundation and reference point for beginning, analyzing progress, and carrying out an implementation plan. Dual Language Immersion Program Planning and Implementation This section of the literature review highlights research on the planning and implementation of dual language immersion programs. The literature reveals common practices across schools and studies conducted during the planning phase. Common planning phase practices include establishing equity and cross-cultural goals, studying the area’s demographics, assessing the knowledge of staff and administration regarding DLIP, selecting a program model, selecting curriculum and assessments in both languages, and selecting a process for students to enter the program (Sugarman, J. & Howard, E.R., 2001; Calderon, M. & Carreon, A., 2000; Howard, E.R., & Christian, D., 2002; Christian, D., 1996; Montague, N.S., 1997; Padilla, A. M., Fan, L. Xu, X. & Silva, D., 2013). Another commonality across the studies is the minimum one- year timeline schools allot to the planning phase before the actual implementation of a new DLIP. In addition to synthesizing common practices in the planning phase, this section reviews a dissertation on the case study of three schools’ implementation of a DLIP in an urban school district in the Midwest (Romero-Johnson, 2011). This section also describes a report by Calderon and Carreon (2000), which focused on the implementation of DLIPs in four schools. Finally, the role the community plays in the planning and implementation process is included in the final section of the literature review. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 70 Planning Phase The purpose of this section is to identify common practices in how schools and districts plan in order to implement a Dual Language Immersion Program. Because DLIPs require instruction in two languages to students with different native languages as well as the acquisition of teachers with bilingual teacher credentialing and cross-cultural experiences, the program is challenging to implement effectively, making the planning phase critical. Sugarman and Howard (2001) report findings from the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) at UC Berkeley in which researchers collected program and demographic information from 250 two-way immersion programs. The term two- way immersion is synonymous to dual language immersion as established earlier in the literature review. The brief did not specify where in the United States the 250 two-way immersion programs are located. To collect information on effective DLIP implementation practices, the Center for Applied Linguistics at CREDE mailed questionnaires to the primary contacts for the 250 programs the CREDE has in its directory from programs across the United States. The question relevant to this literature review is: What advice can you offer new two-way programs that are starting up? The respondents’ suggestions included: allowing at least one year to plan for the program, establishing a planning committee with administrators, teachers, parents, and community members, and keeping the goals and long range program design in mind throughout the planning process. The questionnaire also revealed tasks, which needed to be accomplished in the planning phase: studying the area’s demographics and identifying needs of parents and students in the community, familiarizing staff, administration, and prospective parents with research on two-way immersion programs and biliteracy development. Selecting a program model, curriculum, and assessments were also listed as tasks to be accomplished in the planning PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 71 phase. The final recommendations made by schools that returned the CREDE’s questionnaire, were to establish criteria for accepting students into the program as well as selecting staff to implement the program. The usefulness of this study conducted by CREDE is that implementers of DLIPs can draw on the experiences of others and their reported questionnaire answers. Calderon and Carreon (2000) report on the implementation of a two-way bilingual program in four elementary schools in the El Paso Independent School District, which borders Mexico. El Paso Independent School District began implementation in two K-5 schools initially. Then, two years later, began the two-way bilingual program in two more K-5 schools. This was called the second phase. The program was implemented in kindergarten and then added one grade level per year. The study did not specify if this was a program within a school or a school wide program with all students and teachers participating. The participants were 24 teachers from two schools: 12 from each school. Half of the teachers were bilingual, English and Spanish, and Hispanic. The other half, were monolingual, and white Anglo. Each year of the four-year study, descriptions were compiled for the 24 teachers through all day observations. All participants were videotaped for an hour, at randomly selected times throughout the day, twice in the fall, and twice in the spring. Additionally, six of the teachers were observed all day, for a whole week. The group of 24 teachers was also observed and videotaped once a month during their two-hour Teacher Learning Community (TLC) sessions. The participants also responded to a twenty-question, essay type questionnaire asking them to elaborate on their teaching practices, team-teaching experiences, and perceptions on problems and successes during implementation. The term two-way bilingual education will be used in this section, as it is the term the researchers use. After reading the researchers’ definition of two-way bilingual education and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 72 their use of the 50:50 model, it is synonymous with this study’s term Dual Language Immersion term. The goals of the action-research project were to 1) document the design, implementation, and program adjustments of the two-way bilingual program; 2) analyze teacher performance and professional development in the context of implementing complex change; 3) identify the pedagogical variables that facilitate or impede learning through two languages simultaneously; and 4) identify the most promising program features and the school structures for program implementation, and the role of the principal within these programs. Although the report also discusses teacher performance and pedagogical variables for bilingual instruction, the discussion of design and implementation is the most relevant piece for this literature review. As such, I will focus just on this portion of the study. The researchers used quantitative and ethnographic data collected over three years on teachers and their students examining: 1) students’ language development; 2) student achievement; and 3) teachers’ professional accomplishments. Teachers and administrators were given questionnaires for the researchers to learn about the pre- implementation or planning phase of the two-way bilingual program. The ethnographic data consisted of field notes, interviews, video-taping of the Teachers’ Learning Communities (TLC) sessions, professional development events, and pre and post video recordings of teachers applying innovations in their classrooms. Calderon and Carreon (2000) include ethnographic data to bring out the values, beliefs, and social practices of Anglo and Hispanic teachers working side by side. This ethnographic piece is significant and unique to the planning and implementation of a DLIP, as other program implementations, such as math or English Language Arts curricula, don’t need to consider how ethnically and linguistically diverse teachers need to collaborate for the viability of the program. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 73 The results of the questionnaire revealed a planning timeline marked by key events led by key individuals. First on the planning timeline, during the planning phase, a meeting was scheduled for the principals and key teachers to meet with the bilingual education program coordinator and the director of curriculum and instruction to discuss a local district model. The objectives of the meeting were to: 1) establish a two-way bilingual program which would comply with state regulations; 2) utilize best practice and knowledge of language acquisition; 3) be designed in collaboration with the school community; 4) result in reform of the school’s organization, curriculum, and instruction; 5) improve teaching practices and promote high student achievement; and 6) be accepted by parents, teachers, and students as an enrichment program. Next on the timeline, through subsequent meetings, three goals for the two-way bilingual programs were established. The goals were for student academic excellence in Spanish and English, fostering student high self-esteem for the minority language speakers, and multicultural understanding among students, teachers, and parents. In order to meet these goals, during the pre-implementation phase, training in these areas as well as curriculum writing was provided for teachers. Teachers were able to pilot their curriculum in the spring before the start of the implementation year. In addition to creating the curriculum, the training activities allowed teachers to apply their learning in practice, as well as to prepare them for giving concrete examples of the benefits of two- way bilingual education to parents and community members. Teachers also participated in summer curriculum design focused on a global education perspective. Teachers were also placed on teaching teams made up of monolingual and bilingual teachers in an effort to build collaboration and each teacher’s strengths. El Paso Independent School District also decided on using the 50:50 model, as curriculum was organized into PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 74 thematic units, being taught in either English or Spanish. The instructional day, including which languages would be used for each subject, was also established, and documented on a planning diagram. Documents explaining the thematic units and language of instruction, program guidelines outlining assessments for grades K-5, staff development to support all teachers’ learning about two-way bilingual education, and parental involvement were all created prior to the implementation year. After four years of implementation study, the researchers made additional recommendations for schools planning to implement a DLIP. Based on the researchers’ observations from the ethnographic data, in which teachers were recorded and observed, Calderon and Carreon (2000) asserted programs must be an integral part of the whole school operation or a whole school reform initiative in which all teachers, administrators, parents, and students are involved. The TLCs created a venue for collaboration and helped foster peer relationships for teachers to reflect, observe, and review each other’s work. Based on observations and teacher response, Calderon and Carreon (2000) concluded staff development for teachers and administrators must include ways of addressing and altering power relationships in the school regarding diversity, ethnicity, and bilingual education. In two cases, the teaming teachers did not survive the first year of implementation. The bilingual teachers felt their monolingual partners were being unfair to the minority language children. The researchers wrote they were not aware of the power struggle until they learned the two bilingual teachers requested a transfer to a different school. As a result, the researchers added power relations, between monolingual, and bilingual teachers, to be addressed in the planning phase of DLIP implementation. Staff development and relationships with outside districts are helpful in sustaining quality and morale. Based on their observations and questionnaires, the researchers PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 75 noted the DLIP program becomes the basis for everyone’s learning and contribution of talent, as collaboration between bilingual and monolingual teachers is key to longevity of the program. The researchers also noted staff development for DLIP must also take special consideration of the mainstream teachers’ needs. Teachers should be trained in looking at the status of each language, and how it is sanctioned and encouraged by their everyday instructional practices, as well as treatment of their teaching partners. Howard and Christian (2002) identified key issues to consider during the planning phase of a two-way immersion program, which highlight similar characteristics as those found by Sugarman and Howard (2001) and Calderon and Carreon (2000). Howard and Christian’s (2002) report was also published by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) just as Sugarman and Howard’s (2001) report, which looked at questionnaire results from 250 two-way immersion programs across the United States. Both studies use the term two- way immersion, which is synonymous to dual language immersion program. Howard and Christian’s (2002) report acknowledges the complexity of a school’s preparation for a two-way immersion program, as instruction in two languages is required, as well as integrating two groups of students, who most likely come from different cultural backgrounds. Howard and Christian (2002) discuss the rise in popularity of two-way immersion programs in the past 20 years as a result of policy makers and educators recognizing the need for residents who are proficient in more than one language and the rapidly increasing numbers of language minority students entering the U.S. Thus, Howard and Christian’s (2002) brief intended to address questions schools and districts may have regarding the planning and implementation of two-way immersion programs. The brief is a synthesis of information based on 15 years of research on two-way immersion programs at the CREDE and not an empirical study. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 76 The brief from the CREDE reported on data gathered from a questionnaire sent to two- way immersion programs in order to be listed in the online Directory of Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Programs in the United States (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2002). Staff members of the two-way immersion programs were asked to comment on the most important features of their program and offer advice to new two-way immersion programs. Howard and Christian (2002) provided a summary of the self-reported advice on planning and implementation. The general topics mentioned by respondents were planning, teacher recruitment, parent involvement, establishing equal status of the two languages, cultures and groups of students, fostering high expectations for all students, and ongoing reflection and self-evaluation on the part of teachers and administrators. For planning, the questionnaires suggested taking sufficient time to involve school and community members; the amount of time was not defined. Planning time was also suggested to make connections to existing programs and visit other schools with community members such as parents in order to observe and begin to understand how two-way immersion classrooms operate. In addition to planning in advance, teacher recruitment in advance was also mentioned, because bilingual two-way immersion teachers have specific skills and credentials. Bilingual teacher recruitment is key for classroom instruction, as well as building and fostering a school culture, valuing two languages and a multi cultural campus. Along with hiring bilingual teachers, creating a positive multicultural campus in which high expectations for all students to become biliterate regardless of their native language background or socio economic status are established is also important. Fostering this multicultural campus among bilingual and monolingual teachers was also mentioned in the Calderon and Carreon (2000) study. As schools or districts plan for DLIP, they must consider planning for collegiality and buy-in from their teachers who themselves often come from different cultural backgrounds. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 77 As Calderon and Carreon (2000) concluded, TLCs and discussion times can be planned for when initiating a DLIP. Finally, according to responses offering advice on the planning and implementation of a two-way immersion program, it’s important to dedicate time and resources for systematic on-going assessment and self-reflection for students and teachers. The brief concludes with the acknowledgement that the introduction of any new program requires planning and implementation. However, two-way immersion programs require specific planning practices that are different. These include teacher recruitment, a possible shift in school culture, parent education and involvement, as well as ongoing assessment and self-reflection, as monolingual and bilingual teachers collaborate together. The brief noted with more frequent reflection, collaboration, and communication, a more cohesive DLIP would be in place. Montague (1997) also examined critical components for dual language programs, and began her study with the planning phase. Montague (1997) also asserted DLIPs are unique in the specific planning components before implementation. Montague (1997) based her critical components on her own experience as a bilingual classroom teacher, an English as a Second Language (ESL) consultant, and time as an assistant professor at two different universities in the southern and southwest United States. She did not conduct an empirical study, but based her conclusions on discussions throughout her career and experiences. Montague (1997) wrote, “The following are several components that appear critical for success in many dual language programs.” (p.411). She has worked with teachers, administrators, and curriculum planning committees at various stages of the planning and implementation phase of DLIPs. Montague (1997) also asserted the planning for a DLIP is different from bilingual programs, which served only language minority groups, and did not foster biliteracy in the same way that DLIPs aim to. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 78 The seven critical components identified by Montague (1997) are similar to those identified earlier in the literature review. What is interesting is all seven components are related to planning, before implementation occurs. This underlines the significance of the planning phase before implementation of a DLIP. Montague’s (1997) components are: 1) define the model; 2) gradual phase-in of the program; 3) instruction reflecting population; 4) materials, specifically the value of each language should be clear if the outcome is for students to be biliterate and the classroom materials should reflect this value; 5) teacher training 6) administrative support; and 7) examine the role of elicited response. Addressed earlier in this literature review was the selection of the DLIP model: 90:10 or 50:50. Montague suggests the planning team discuss how the languages will be used throughout the day, which content will be taught in which language, and how teachers will partner to teach language through content. The second component, gradual phase-in refers to the consideration of starting a DLIP within a school first and then adding classrooms at the kindergarten level as popularity grows versus designating an entire site as a DLIP from the beginning. Specifically, this means beginning at the kindergarten level, and adding a grade level as the students promote to the next grade level. This is also more feasible considering the demand for bilingual teachers to sustain a DLIP. The third component, instruction reflecting population, refers to the examination of a site’s current student population and their native language. According to Montague (1997), some schools interested in DLIP may have a 90% language majority student population (English speakers) and need to recruit language minority students into the program in order for both groups to have native language speakers as models. The classroom population of native English and native Spanish speakers must be balanced in order to provide language models for both groups. If there are only 10% native Spanish speakers, the classroom instruction may begin to look like Spanish as a PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 79 Second Language to accommodate the native English speakers, leaving the native Spanish speakers bored and disengaged. The fourth component, materials, is one that has been discussed earlier in the literature review. The research and selection of bilingual materials is critical and time consuming for a committee planning a DLIP. The fifth and sixth component, teacher training and administrative support, are components of the planning of a DLIP, which were identified by authors, such as Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001) and Calderon and Carreon (2000) and mentioned earlier in this literature review. However, the last critical component, identified by Montague, examines the role of elicited response, suggests educators in a new DLIP should discuss how they will respond to a mispronounced word as there is social stigma attached. For example, based on her own experience and observations, Montague cautions educators not to treat differently a language majority student mispronouncing a word in the minority language (English speaker mispronouncing Spanish) versus the other way around. The socio-political dynamics shift in a DLIP, based on Montague’s personal observations, and English speakers learning Spanish will not attempt to use Spanish unless the teacher makes this an expectation. The pressure for the majority language speaker to learn the minority language is not as great as the reverse. Montague urges the discussion about socio economic factors and language use amongst educators in the planning phase of a DLIP. In the following section on implementation, a study by Padilla, Fan, Xu, and Silva (2013) describes a Mandarin/English DLIP from the planning stages into the first five years of implementation and echoes many of the planning phase pieces already mentioned by Montague (1997), Sugarman and Howard (2001), and Calderon and Carreon (2000). PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 80 Implementation The following two studies describe the implementation of a DLIP program, as well as key components of their planning phases. I have included information on the planning phase along with the implementation descriptions here, as it is easier to visualize the implementation process when the planning phase description is included. It should be noted that there were far fewer empirical studies conducted on the implementation phase. Padilla, Fan, Xu, and Silva (2013) conducted a study to track the progress of heritage language and non-heritage language learners enrolled in a public Mandarin/English two-way immersion program as students moved from Kindergarten through fifth grade. The researchers compared the academic performance of the Mandarin/English two-way immersion students with same age peers attending the same school but not enrolled in the Mandarin program. While this study had other elements, the focus in this chapter will be on the authors’ discussion of the implementation and background information about the programs. The researchers began their report by describing the context of the school and community in 2005. In 2005, parents’ interest in a Mandarin immersion program was brought to the attention of the school board. The upper-middle-income suburban school district of approximately 12,500 students is located in Northern California and at the time of the study the schools were known for their high academic performance with a graduation rate of 98%. The district was made up of 13 elementary schools, which included two schools of choice, three middle schools, and two high schools. The district already had a Spanish immersion program in one of its elementary school sites. The school board did not approve the initial plan for a Mandarin immersion program. So, the school district, in collaboration with the California World Language Project at Stanford University, applied for and received a Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) grant to PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 81 implement Mandarin instruction at the elementary and secondary levels. In 2007, the FLAP grant was awarded to the district, and the school board approved the opening of a mixed-grade (K-1, 2- 3, 4-5) Mandarin immersion program offered as a public school of choice option in 2008. The school year began with two K-1 classes, each consisting of 10 kindergarten and 10 first-grade students for a total of 40 students. Mandarin speaking parents who identified their child’s home language as Mandarin were placed in a candidate pool and given oral interviews in Mandarin. Based on the interview results, 10 entering kindergartners and 10 entering first-graders were selected as the native Mandarin speakers. The researchers followed this cohort of students through their fifth-grade year. In subsequent years, a lottery system was put in place to fill the kindergarten classes. The teachers selected for the program were all native Mandarin speakers who held a multiple-subject credential in bilingual education from universities in California with a specialization in Mandarin. The program was designed slightly differently from the 90:10 model described earlier in the literature review. The K-1 class received 80% of their day in Mandarin and 20% of the day students received English instruction. The 2-3 grade classrooms receive 60% Mandarin instruction and 40% English instruction. Finally, the 4-5 classrooms received 50% Mandarin instruction and 50% English instruction. Unique to this program, compared to others described in the literature review, is this program consisted of mixed-grade levels, which aided collaboration and relationship building. Curriculum and instruction were designed for collaboration and peer language modeling. Finally, parent involvement was viewed as crucial to the sustainability of the program as parents were expected to assist teachers in teaching subjects, organize activities, and maintain classroom discipline. This study is relevant and significant to this literature review as it examines not only the planning elements, but also the first five years of implementation of a Mandarin/English DLIP. This study was also selected PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 82 for this literature review because the authors highlighted several of the necessary pieces in the planning phase of a DLIP outlined in the previous studies. For example, the district took care in establishing the goals, program design, and instructional practices for the Mandarin/English program. The school district also studied area demographics and took into consideration the needs of the students and community. In selecting the model, the district made its own variation of the 90:10 model, based on their teachers’ and students’ needs. The authors also described the detailed selection process for incoming students. The curriculum design and planning piece was also accounted for as outlined by the earlier studies in this section. In addition to the curriculum design, the assessments for the program were also designed. Sugarman and Howard (2001) described the value in establishing and forming partnerships with outside organizations to share ideas. This particular school district looked to the California World Language Project at Stanford University and applied for a FLAP grant in order to implement their DLIP. Padilla, Fan, Xu, and Silva (2013) were able to include the planning elements a school district described in their inception phase, as well as track their first five years of implementation. The final piece of work in this literature review is a dissertation written in 2011, by Silvia Romero-Johnson from Edgewood College. Romero-Johnson (2011) conducted a case study of three elementary principals’ experiences in the planning and implementation of a DLIP in the same urban school district in the Midwest. Her research questions were: 1) What are the challenges in the implementation of a dual language immersion program as an instructional strand for principals? 2) What are the opportunities in the implementation of a dual language immersion program as an instructional strand for school principals? Romero-Johson’s (2011) case study triangulated data from staff interviews, observations, and reflections. There were two basic findings. The first finding was many of the initial challenges became opportunities for staff PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 83 and administrator growth as the school and community began to understand the change process in adding a DLIP strand. The second finding was the unwavering belief of each principal that DLIPs can bring equity and opportunity for the entire school community. The planning phase described by each principal is significant to this literature review. In 2005, a group of parents from the community brought a proposal for a DLIP to the Board of Education (BOE). The BOE approved the proposal as a school wide-charter school program. The program was in existence for six years and was very popular within the school district according to Romero-Johnson’s (2011) historical context description. In 2009, the BOE mandated the planning and implementation of three new DLIP strands within three existing elementary schools. The three principals and three schools were the focus of Romero-Johnson’s (2011) dissertation. The first principal opened one DLIP Spanish/English class in 2009 and the next two principals opened a kindergarten strand in 2010. Based on Romero-Johnson’s triangulation of data, she identified key components to the planning phase. Principals believed in a moral purpose of providing equity, cultural, and global awareness through the acquisition of a second language. The principals knew they would train staff in understanding a change process, sharing knowledge of cross-cultural understanding even if they were not part of the DLIP strand. Finally, the principals recognized ahead of the implementation years, the significance of building and strengthening relationships between monolingual and bilingual staff. The principals were ultimately the planners and implementers in this case study of DLIP implementation. However, the impetus for the Spanish/English DLIP came from the community. This section of the literature review synthesized key elements to consider during the planning and implementation phases of a DLIP. What is lacking in this review of literature are more case studies documenting the planning and implementation phases a school or district PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 84 moves through on the journey to full implementation of a DLIP within a school or as a school wide program. The intent of this study is to fill the gap in understanding how districts plan for and implement a dual language immersion program given a dearth in the literature base, particularly as it relates to DLIP implementation. The following table outlines key elements in the planning phase of a DLIP and lists the authors that identified them in their study or brief. Table 2. Main Elements in the Planning Phase and the Studies That Mention Them Main Elements in Planning Phase Studies That Mention Them Establishing goals, program design, and Instructional Practice Calderon, M. & Carreon, A. (2000). Studying area demographics and identifying needs of parents and children in community Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001). Calderon, M. & Carreon, A. (2000). A Montague, N.S. (1997). Familiarizing staff, administration, & prospective parents with research on DLIP, & other relevant topics, such as second language acquisition, biliteracy development, and sheltered instruction Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001) Calderon, M. & Carreon, A. (2000) Montague, N.S. (1997) Choosing a program model Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001) Montague, N.S. (1997) Making curriculum decisions, developing and translating material if necessary Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001). Calderon, M. & Carreon, A. (2000) Montague, N.S. (1997) PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 85 Choosing student assessment instruments Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001) Establishing criteria for accepting students into the program Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001) Calderon, M. & Carreon, A. (2000) Selecting staff and planning staff development Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001) Calderon, M. & Carreon, A. (2000) Visiting and forming partnerships with other DLIP sites to share ideas for curriculum, scheduling, and materials Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001) Attending conferences, such as those sponsored by the National Association of Bilingual Educators Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001) Marketing the program in preschools, community centers, and at community events using professional brochures Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001) A gradual phase-in of the program Montague, N.S. (1997) Dedicated administrators with a clear understanding of research as well as community needs Montague, N.S. (1997) Examine the role of elicited response. Montague, N.S. (1997) Summary The literature presented in this chapter provides an overview of the definition and identified features of dual language immersion programs, along with the goals and rationale for the program, the theoretical foundation for change process and leadership, and finally research on the planning and implementation process involved. The literature distinguished bilingual education from DLIPs in that historically, bilingual education served English language learners, and did not include native English speakers in the classroom (Christian, 1996; Lindholm-Leary, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 86 2005; Linton, 2004). Bilingual programs were historically considered remedial. In contrast, DLIPs are defined by the literature as enrichment programs capitalizing on the primary languages of two linguistically different student groups (Thomas & Collier, 2002; Lindholm- Leary & Block, 2010). In addition to defining the term dual language immersion program, this chapter described its defining features. Defining features such as: the model (90:10 or 50:50), student linguistic and cultural makeup, curriculum and assessment, teacher training, family involvement, and goals (Christian et al, 1997; Lindholm-Leary, 2001) were identified as features of a DLIP. After the definition and features were established, the goals and rationale of DLIPs were defined as a means to serve language minority and language majority students with the objective of bilingual and biliterate students prepared for a global job market. In the next section, theories of change processes and leadership were examined and related to the planning and implementation of a DLIP. Learning organizations (Senge, 1990), change processes (Fullan, 2005), distributed leadership (Elmore, 2000), and school leadership (Marzano, 2005) were identified as useful and relevant theories to the planning and implementation of DLIPs. Kotter’s (2015) eight step process, which drew on these earlier theorists, was also included to show concrete ways in which changes take place in organizations. Finally, the third section of the chapter, DLIP planning and implementation, examined schools and districts that have gone through the planning and implementation phases. While there are more studies that outline the planning processes districts went through before implementing DLIPs, there were fewer studies that examined implementation practices. This chapter outlined current research on DLIPs, as well as the lack of research on the implementation of DLIPs. The following section compiles the findings of my literature review into a conceptual framework depicting key concepts from this chapter. What follows is my framework that will serve to guide the rest of my study. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 87 Conceptual Framework The purpose of my conceptual framework is to display the concepts the literature uncovered, and select those I want to use for my study, presenting them as a graphic description of the research. Maxwell (2013) describes the conceptual framework as “something that is constructed, not found, and incorporates pieces that are borrowed from elsewhere, but the structure, the overall coherence, is something that you build, not something that exists ready- made” (p.41). My conceptual framework will depict these concepts together, as one visual representation. The goal of my study is to explore the reasons why a K-12 urban school district decided to implement a dual language immersion program as well as to explore how this district planned for and implemented such a program. The conceptual framework links the theory of change process and leadership with the planning phase of DLIPs. I have made this connection as Maxwell (2013) describes the researcher as a “bricoleur, someone who uses whatever tools and materials are at hand to complete a project” (p.42). I have used theoretical ideas on change processes and empirical studies on DLIPs to depict what I believe are coherent pieces to explain the how and why behind planning and implementing a DLIP. First, I will describe the three main concepts outlined in this chapter and how they relate to planning and implementing a DLIP. Next, I will provide a visual representation of the conceptual framework followed by a narrative description. Below is a concept map, defined by Novak and Gowin (1984), as a tool for developing and clarifying theory. Said another way, a concept map is a visual representation of the concepts presented in this chapter and their relationship together (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework visually depicts the relationship between the goals of a DLIP, the planning and implementation stages of a DLIP, the theories of change process and leadership, as well as the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 88 populations of students served by the program. This model will help explain how and why school districts implement a dual language immersion program. Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Starting from the bottom of the concept map, the theories of change process and leadership ground the planning process and the implementation process. Organizations such as school districts can draw on Fullan’s (2001) work on change processes as a new program is introduced. The theories are placed at the bottom of the map, as I assert they are the foundation for how to make a change in program. Senge’s theory of learning organization is also significant as administrators and leaders must think of their organization as one that is always learning and stretching mindsets. When a leader is able to shift the organizational culture into one of a learning environment, change in instructional practices will be welcomed and most importantly implemented. The introduction of a DLIP requires learning and understanding on the part of all Establish:* Goals* Program* design* (model)* Instruc9onal* prac9ce* Study*Area:* Demographics* Iden9fy*needs* of*parents*and* children*in* community* Recruit*&* hire* personnel* Familiarize* staff,* admin,*and* prospec9ve* parents* with* research*on* DLIP* Select* curriculum* and* assessments* Gradual* phase*in* Visit*and* form* partnerships* AJend* conferences* marke9ng* • Bilingual( • Biliterate( • Prepared(for( global(economy( • Cross7cultural( awareness( • High(student( achievement( Planning* Implementa9on* Popula<ons(to(serve:************Language*minority*students,*English*language*learners,*language*majority*students* Capitalize(on(na<ve( language(of(two( dis<nct(groups( DLIP*GOALS* Outcomes* Enrichment( ( ( Change*Process*and*Leadership*Theory* Senge:(Learning(organiza<ons( Fullan:(Change(processes( KoJer:*8*Steps*for*Leading*Change* 4.*Communicate* *****Vision* 6.*Generate* *****Short*Term* *****Wins* 5.*Empower** ****Ac9on* 7.**Consolidate* *****Gains* 8.**Anchor*New* *****Approaches* 1.*Create*Urgency* 2.*Build*Coali9on* 3.*Form*Vision* PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 89 participants. In addition to Fullan and Senge, I included Kotter’s (2015) eight steps of leading and accelerating lasting change. Kotter’s work is layered on top of the planning and implementation elements revealed by the literature review. While other change process and leadership theorists are discussed in this literature review, I assert Fullan, Senge, and Kotter are the most important for leaders to understand when going about an organizational change such as the implementation of a DLIP. The goals are also placed at the bottom of the map as they too serve as the foundational reason why schools bother to make a programming change. In the center of the diagram, the planning, implementation, and outcomes are placed along an arrow to depict the process or movement through the phases, each incorporating elements that researchers have identified as essential factors in the process. Although the process was initially theorized to be linear, through my data collection and analysis, the process was in fact found to be iterative. Finally, the populations served are placed at the top of the diagram to depict the students who are benefitting from a DLIP. As seen in the conceptual framework, all students are benefitting from a DLIP. Ultimately, the DLIP aims to affect students as they grow into biliterate and bicultural young adults. Although the planning and implementation elements represented in the conceptual framework may not be an exhaustive list, these were the most commonly discussed in the literature. And while this conceptual framework guided this inquiry, it was in no way seen as a final and static framework incapable of being revised. Summary Planning and implementing a new dual language immersion program means entering into uncharted territory for most school districts. This chapter provided an overview of the literature describing the characteristics of, as well as defining a DLIP. The goals and rationale behind a PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 90 DLIP were also presented. The benefits to students were included as important goals of a DLIP. Next, this chapter described theories of change and leadership because organizations embarking on program change can benefit from the tenets of good systems change practices. Finally, empirical studies and reviews on schools and districts that have planned and implemented a DLIP were also described to set the stage for a case study on the same topic. The chapter concluded with my conceptual framework, using the theories of change process and leadership as a foundation for the identified elements of the planning and implementation phases of a DLIP. The goals of DLIPs for all students was also depicted in the conceptual framework visual to remind the reader of the purpose and justification for implementing the program. Ultimately, a DLIP serves to produce bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural young adults. While this conceptual framework served as a tool to guide my inquiry, the main aim of this study was to explore the reasons why and the process through which the district in my study planned for and implemented a DLIP. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 91 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS This study sought to understand both why and how a school district implements a DLIP. Specifically, this study aimed to learn how the planning process progressed and what the nature of the first-year of implementation was like. Researchers have identified steps in the planning phase as outlined in the previous chapter. And while far fewer studies focus on the implementation process, the previous chapter also described general elements of implementation of a DLIP in different school districts. Given the amount of research on planning for a DLIP, and the lack of research on actual implementation of DLIP, this study aimed to provide the reader with a clear picture of what both planning and implementation looked like at a K-12 urban school district. This chapter begins by reminding the reader of the research questions that guided my study. I will then describe the qualitative research approach including the site selection process, sample and population criteria, instrumentation, data collection and analysis, as well as the validity strategies I used to carry out this study. Next, I will discuss the credibility and trustworthiness of this case study and lay out the limitations and delimitations. Finally, I will discuss how I ensured that the study was conducted in an ethical fashion. Research Questions 1. How and for what reasons did a K-12 district plan for a DLIP? 2. What is the nature of implementation in the first year of DLIP in one K-12 district? In order to answer my research questions, I drew on my conceptual framework depicted and discussed in Chapter Two that addressed the planning phase and implementation of a DLIP. From the conceptual framework, I created interview protocols to examine and understand how a district navigated through the two processes. Understanding how a district navigated through PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 92 planning and implementation phases of a DLIP will be useful for districts considering a DLIP within their own district. A qualitative study allowed me to provide an understanding and paint a picture of what planning and implementation for a DLIP looked like at a K-12 district. Research Design This study used an overall qualitative case study approach. Merriam (2009) states the purpose of a qualitative study is to understand how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to those experiences. Through my interviews with participants, I pieced together and constructed how the participants made meaning of the planning and implementation processes in order to answer my research questions. Qualitative research is also grounded in process theory, according to Maxwell (2013), and tends to see the world in terms of the processes that connect people, situations, and events. This is significant to my qualitative study as I aimed to understand the connections between people and events during the planning and implementation stages of a DLIP. I was also interested in the events and process of how the planning and implementation unfolded. Of the various qualitative study designs, this study took a case study approach. According to Creswell (2014), the case study approach is defined as one in which the researcher “develops an in-depth analysis of a case” (p.14). And Merriam (2009) states, a case study is specific to a single unit at a specific point in time. As such, I conducted an in-depth analysis of how one particular K-12 school district planned for and implemented a Spanish DLIP at one elementary school and a Mandarin DLIP at a different elementary school. I bounded the study to one school district, interviewing key stakeholders who were involved in the planning, and then worked through the initial two years of DLIP implementation. The rich descriptive data the case study PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 93 yielded will be valuable to inform other district policy makers and program designers on how to plan and implement a DLIP. In this study, the data came from interviews with key stakeholders, such as the former superintendent, assistant superintendent of instruction, the assistant superintendent of human resources, the principals who implemented a DLIP at their site, teachers, and a parent, were used to understand the planning and implementation of a DLIP. Interviews are useful in understanding “how people interpret the world around them” (Merriam, 2009 p.88). Merriam (2009) also writes interviews are necessary when the researcher is interested in past events that are impossible to observe. I did not conduct observations, because the planning and first-year implementation phases were events of the recent past. Through my semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders, I was able to gather data on events and interactions of the recent past in the planning and implementation of a DLIP within a school district. This qualitative study allowed me to gain insight into a K-12 school district’s journey through the planning and implementation phases of a DLIP from the perspective of the individuals who were critical in these processes. Philosophical Approaches According to Merriam (2009) interviews have been used for centuries as a means of collecting information. This qualitative study, made up of semi-structured interviews and a collection and study of documents, was based on a constructivist worldview. According to Creswell (2014), social constructivists “believe that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work” (p.8). The goal of the constructivist researcher is to rely on the participants’ perspectives and views of the topic studied (Creswell, 2014). In this specific case study, the participants’ recollection of and perspectives about the planning and implementation PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 94 process formed the basis of my data. Further, Creswell (2014) states constructivist researchers “focus on the specific contexts in which people live and work in order to understand the historical and cultural settings of the participants” (p. 8). Understanding the participants’ history and role in the district allowed me to explore their perceptions of DLIPs so as to better understand the rationale for embarking on the journey to plan for and implement a DLIP. Significant to my philosophical approach as a constructivist researcher in this qualitative study are Crotty’s (1998) assumptions: 1) Qualitative researchers use open-ended questions in order for participants to share their views. Human beings construct meaning as they engage with the world, 2) humans engage with their world and make sense of it based on their historical and social perspectives – qualitative researchers seek to understand the context or setting of the participants through visiting this context and gathering information personally, 3) the basic generation of meaning is always social, arising in and out of interaction with a human community, and the process of qualitative research is mostly inductive, meaning the researcher generates meaning from data collected in the field. Since I intended to understand the planning and implementation processes of a K-12 district’s DLIP as recounted by the key individuals, a constructivist approach was appropriate. Specifically, interviews with the people who worked through the experience were critical to helping me understand how they collectively made sense of their district’s processes. And I was interested also in how the stakeholders collaborated and interacted throughout the planning and implementation processes. As indicated by the organizational change theorists in the conceptual framework, organizational change comes about through collaborative work of many, not through the efforts of a few individuals. The roles in an implementation are distributed and interactive as the third principle above states the basic generation of meaning social and arising out of interaction within a community. The participants PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 95 most likely had opinions and personal thoughts about the process that were eventually revealed in the interviews. Thus, in connection with constructivism theory, I was able to weave together the various components from the participants’ interviews to illustrate the decision making process, the planning, and finally implementation process of this case study’s dual language immersion program. Sample I was specifically interested in conducting a qualitative case study on a K-12 school district that had undergone the planning phase and was in the early stages of DLIP implementation. Miles and Huberman (1984) caution that researchers cannot study everyone everywhere doing everything. Thus, I was selective and purposeful about which district I chose to study. My unit of analysis was one K-12 school district that had planned for and implemented a DLIP within the last two years. I used purposeful sampling to determine both the setting and the participants of this study. Setting The setting for this study was purposefully selected so as to maximize the rich data I sought to gather for this case study. The following are the criteria for selecting the setting, one K-12 school district. Criterion 1: The first criterion is in regards to the setting and the site. The district must have been in its first two years of implementation in order to accurately capture the recent past events regarding the planning and implementation phases of a DLIP. Given that human memory fades, it is advisable that a study that is asking stakeholders to self-report their recollections of a past event or events should ensure that the events were not too far into the past. Choosing a PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 96 school district that was at most in its first two years of implementation was most likely to produce good, rich data. Criterion 2: The K-12 school district was located in the Los Angeles area due to proximity for the researcher and thus feasibility in gaining access to site members who were involved in the planning and implementation. Maxwell (2013) highlights the importance of considering the feasibility of access and data collection when determining the site. I bound the study to a K-12 school district in southern California Participants The selection of participants was deliberate because I was looking to gain specific information (Maxwell, 2013). I was interested in collecting data that would address my research questions stated earlier in this chapter. In order to do this, I had to consider carefully which and how many participants to recruit for the study. Criterion 1: Based on the key planning phases outlined in the literature review, I hoped to interview individuals who were involved in the planning and implementation processes within the chosen K-12 district. Maxwell (2013) cites Weiss (1994) who argued the researcher must interview participants who are, “uniquely able to be informed expert, or witness to an event” (p.97). As such, I was interested in participants who had a deep level of involvement and were critical in moving the planning and implementation of the DLIP forward. I started with the stakeholders mentioned here in the Participants section and found out through interviews if there were other stakeholders who also had a deep and critical level of involvement. As such, a combination of purposeful and snowball sampling was used. My purposeful selection ultimately consisted of ten individuals who participated in or led the planning phase and possibly continued their involvement during the implementation phase. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 97 These individuals included the former superintendent, assistant superintendent of educational services, assistant superintendent of human resources, principals of DLIP schools, teachers, and parent because they met the criterion above to help me understand the planning process and the nature of DLIP implementation in the first year. Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols Qualitative Interviews The primary source of data for this study were interviews. According to Patton (2002), a researcher uses interviews because we can’t observe past situations. As Weiss (1994) writes, “Interviewing gives us access to the observation of others. Through interviewing we can learn about places we have not been and could not go and about settings in which we have not lived” (p.1). Thus, I relied on interviews to understand the nature of planning and implementation since these processes occurred in the recent past. Through interviews with district personnel and parents, I hoped to understand the nature of dual language immersion program planning implementation within a K-12 unified school district. Additionally, qualitative researchers are “interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (Merriam, 2009, p 5). How participants reflected on the factors that facilitated or challenged them in the early stages of DLIP planning and implementation will be insightful for other schools and/or districts that want to follow this path. A lot can be gained by understanding the experiences and thought processes district leaders, teachers and parents engaged in while working through the planning and implementation phases. I used a semi-structured interview format. There are several characteristics that describe a semi-structured interview format. The first characteristic, described by Merriam (2009) is PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 98 defined as the following: the use of an interview guide that includes a mix of more or less structured interview questions. All of the questions allow for flexibility, meaning that while there is specific data required from all respondents, the interview is guided by a list of questions or issues to be explored, but there is no predetermined wording or order. Hence, the flexibility comes from open-ended questions, allowing the participant to freely share their experiences, and enabling the researcher to ask probing and clarification questions to seek answers to my research questions. In this study, I asked questions that facilitated responses from the participants, in their own words, as they recalled the recent past. In addition, if I was to understand the nature of the recent DLIP implementation, I had to frame questions that would enable the participant to share the story of the district’s recent journey through DLIP implementation. In order to capture interview data as accurately as possible, Bogdan and Biklen (2007) urge the researcher to complete field notes or write thoughts and comments immediately after the data collection experience. Although I decided to also audio record the interviews, I made written notes during the interviews to capture gestures and body language. The recording alone was not able to capture gestures and facial expressions I might have observed during the interview. Participants were interviewed in a location of their choice and we individually met in their offices, school classrooms, or local coffee shops. Two interviews were conducted with two participants at the same time per their request to interview together. I interviewed ten participants involved in the planning and implementation of their district’s DLIP. The interviews were conducted in a way that addressed the research questions and asked about the concepts related to planning and implementation of a DLIP, which were presented in the literature review and resulting conceptual framework. I created three different sets of interview protocols, each appropriate for the participants’ roles. For example, I PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 99 interviewed three district level personnel and three elementary school leaders using a specific set of questions for the leadership team. Some of those questions asked about leadership and the change process as it pertained to their leadership roles. I had a second set of interview questions for the three teachers I interviewed. Some of those questions were specific to their role as the first DLIP teachers at their respective elementary schools. Finally, I interviewed one parent, and had a separate set of questions about her role in the planning and implementation process. In order to answer my research questions, I asked all participants to look into their district’s recent past and reflect on their role or position during the planning and recent implementation of the Spanish and Mandarin DLIPs. A total of eight interviews were conducted. Due to the participants’ schedules, two interviews were conducted with two participants at a time. In all, I collected 12 hours of interview data. Each interview averaged 90 minutes with a range of 54 minutes and 118 minutes.. Table 3. Study Participants and Data Collection Methods Research Questions Participants Data Collection Methods RQ1: How and for what reasons does a district plan for a dual language immersion program? • Three District office personnel • Three site leaders • Three teachers • One parent with child in first year of DLIP • Interview Protocol 1, 2, and 3 (depending on the participant) Semi-structured Audio-recorded RQ2: What is the nature of implementation in the first year of DLIP? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 100 Data Analysis The task of organizing and analyzing interview data should come as soon as or right after the time in the field. The researcher must be disciplined to make sense of interviews and notes shortly after the participants’ responses, as by human nature, details are quickly forgotten. As such, when I scheduled interviews, I also scheduled time to transcribe and code the transcripts. I began analysis of the data during and in between interviews. I audio recorded the interviews with a recording device as well as with the application Rev.com on my cell phone. During the interviews, I also took notes on the interview protocol noting body language, facial gestures, and tone of the participants. I then used the service Rev.com to transcribe the interviews. Coding should also be done as close to the actual interviews as possible for the same reasons; to capture the information and not lose track of details. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) also state researchers worry about memory. Thus, analysis of interview data must take place within a short window after the data are collected. This part of data collection required the most discipline on my part, as I strived to not delay in the recording and analysis of my observations after each interview. I began the coding process (Maxwell, 2013) using a priori codes taken from my conceptual framework to guide analysis. Then, once the first round of a priori coding was complete, I used what Maxwell (2013) describes as “open coding” (p.107), in which the researcher marks what is of interest from the text, and develops coding categories based on the data from the participants’ responses. Coding is a strategy to organize and label data. Corbin and Strauss (2008) describe the process of coding as the analysis of raw data and making meaning of data in order to find underlying meanings. Merriam (2009) describes coding as the process of assigning some sort of “shorthand designation to various aspects of your data” in order to PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 101 retrieve and remember pieces of data. Using the transcribed interviews, I listened to the recordings and looked for ideas or concepts that surfaced more than once across the interviews. This approach is described by Lichtman (2014) as a generic qualitative approach, in which the researcher collects qualitative data, analyzes it for themes or perspectives, and reports 4-5 themes. I then coded the transcripts with colored pencils to ultimately look for themes or patterns. As I prepared for the next interviews, I was able to review the topics and anticipate possible responses to interview questions. Merriam (2009) describes this process as simultaneous data collection and analysis. The researcher is conducting “rudimentary analysis” in between interviews outside of the field. Coding and rudimentary analysis, however, are only the beginning of deeper analysis. Ultimately, “the goal of data analysis is to answer your research questions” (p.176) as stated by Merriam (2009). Once the first cycle of codes, both apriori and emergent, were documented, those codes were then placed in categories. Merriam (2009) describes codes as categories or conceptual themes that cover many individual examples. This strategy of creating larger categories or buckets as Merriam (2009) describes is a second cycle of analysis. Corbin and Strauss (2008) refer to this type of analysis as a “sense making strategy” as the researcher strives to understand and make meaning of the data. To do this, I looked for themes that related to my research questions. After identifying the common themes, I coded them and looked at the frequency with which they appeared. These frequencies ultimately allowed me to see the common themes, which as Merriam (2009) describes are the buckets. The table below depicts the sequence of events, after the interviews were conducted, for data. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 102 Table 4. Data Analysis Steps 1. Transcribe the interviews. 2. Type up additional notes taken during the interviews. 3. Analyze the transcripts first using a priori codes from the conceptutal framework. Upon completion of first round, analyze to determine main themes that emerge. 4. Assign a code to each theme, pattern, or category I uncover from the transcripts. 5. Create a codebook using Atlas.ti listing themes by code from each interview. This helped identify and see the material collected from the interviews. The management of interview data was facilitated by the use of the qualtitative data analysis and research software program Atlas.ti. I began using Atlas.ti once I had completed my first round of coding, which was done by hand and colored pencils. Upon introduction to Atlas.ti, I stripped my transcripts of any identifiers and created naming conventions for my participants. I then uploaded the transcripts to Atlas.ti and began coding for two more cycles. Atlas.ti enabled me to create and name codes, which I then attached to portions of the transcribed text. In addition to creating and color-coding codes, Atlas.ti allowed me to write and attach memos to text. This process allowed me to write notes, and anchor them to the text, which inspired me to write the note. Not only was I able to keep track of my codes, make notes and attach them to text, Atlas.ti kept a running count of how many times a particular code was used. The codebook, which resulted, was organized by code, and attached to the participants’ naming convention. The codebook facilitated my data analysis. Atlas.ti was the vehicle and tool for my data analysis. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 103 Credibility and Trustworthiness This section discusses how my qualitative research study established credibility and trustworthiness. Qualitative researchers aim to account for bias. As Maxwell (2013) states, “The goal in a qualitative study is not to eliminate [bias], but to understand it and use it productively” (p.125). Maxwell (2013) also makes the point that it is impossible to eliminate the researcher’s theories and beliefs. Instead, the researcher acknowledges how his or her particular beliefs may have influenced the conclusions of the study. I accounted for my own beliefs in the narrative and ensured the explanation of my finding are as accurate as possible based on the themes that emerged from the interviews during coding. Merriam (2009) states the qualitative study “provides the reader with a depiction in enough detail to show that the author’s conclusion makes sense” (p. 210). As Maxwell (2013) states, there are two specific validity threats in a qualitative study: bias and reactivity. Both of these threats to validity are applicable to my study. As for bias, as a former teacher in a bilingual program and the holder of a bilingual, cross cultural, and academic development (BLCAD) credential, as well as a single subject Spanish credential holder, I hold strong beliefs about the value of bilingualism and biliteracy. I value multilingualism and recognize the cross-cultural and academic benefits of being biliterate. My experiences may be mitigated by remaining open about my experiences and views on bilingual education. My role as a bilingual educator and bilingual mother pose potential threats to internal validity due to researcher bias and reactivity. While I am not a native Spanish speaker, my parents, one of whom is an immigrant to the U.S., also value multilingualism. They raised me, and my siblings to speak several languages and to value bilingualism. However, I consider myself bilingual and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 104 biliterate in Spanish and English only. My identity as a researcher and the passion I have for this topic posed particular challenges to conducting a credible and trustworthy study. As stated earlier, a defining component of qualitative research is the researcher is the key instrument suggesting the data collection is based on my interpretation of reality developed by interviews conducted (Merriam, 2009). Ultimately, I interpreted the data. My personal experiences and beliefs about biliteracy affected how I viewed the data I collected. However, my background and personal experience in bilingual education can also be seen as strengths, because I bring insight into the study that other researchers may not have had. Maxwell (2013) also describes reactivity as the influence the researcher has on the setting or individuals studied. Instead of claiming no reactivity, I sought to understand how I might be influencing what the informants say, and how this may affect the validity of the inferences I drew from the interview (Maxwell, 2013). In order to minimize these threats of bias and reactivity, I used multiple strategies such as clarifying researchers’ bias, triangulation, and member checking to ensure validity of this study. In addition to clarifying my biases and perspectives as I have started to do above, I also wrote reflective memos throughout the data collection and analysis phases of the study. These memos served to remind me of my reflective process, and thoughts of the present moment, as I wrote my data analysis and findings chapters. The second method used to build credibility was to triangulate data with different sources. Sources are defined as the multiple interview participants. I conducted eight interviews and spoke with ten participants, making sure to recruit people who held different positions in the district and played different roles in developing the dual language immersion program (Miles et al, 2014; Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) builds on the idea of triangulation and advises PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 105 researches to crystallize their methods of data collection, meaning the researcher looks at their methods from every possible angle to build credibility. Member checking is another strategy to ensure validity of this study. Member checking means I followed up with interview participants after I coded and determined emergent themes. I asked and allowed the participants to examine my findings for accuracy in my interpretation (Creswell, 2014). I sought to find out if my findings were consistent with the participants’ interpretation of the planning and implementation processes. In my introductory section of the interview protocol, I offered each participant the opportunity to review the transcripts and then my findings section. Upon completion of the interview, I again offered the same option to review. The participants all responded with interest in reading the complete study. Many qualitative researchers collect data alone in the field, and therefore must clearly state to the reader how the data was collected and not just what was done in the study (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). I maintained an audit trail in the form of a logbook documenting how data was collected from the interviews, my thoughts and perceptions about the interviews, and how decisions were made throughout the inquiry (Merriam, 2009). The case study approach allowed me to gain multiple perspectives on the planning and implementation process a K-12 district went through. The case study approach examines one case at one point in time. I am interested in this particular district and the participants’ roles and perspectives in this district. Limitations and Delimitations There were two main limitations to this study. The first limitation was this study was based on the perceptions of a relatively small number of participants. As I was unable to interview all participants involved in the planning and implementation of a DLIP, I had to rely on key members who played critical roles. Although the number of participants was small, they PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 106 represented the leadership and participating members of the planning and implementation of the DLIP. Additionally, it’s important to note that not all possible stakeholders are represented in my sample. Most notably, I did not interview members of the union who were not involved in the DLIP planning process. While they were not part of the DLIP planning and implementation process, and thus explains why they weren’t in my original sampling strategy, the data from my study suggested that this group would have had a different perspective to offer to this study. Although I did technically interview teachers’ union members, they were all DLIP teachers. Non DLIP teachers’ union members may have had a different perspective on the planning and implementation processes. So too, would teacher union leadership members who were not a part of this study. A second limitation to the study is I relied on interviews to collect the bulk of my data. I did not conduct any observations, as the planning and first-year implementation phases are past events. I strived to understand and portray the planning and implementation of the DLIP from data collected from interviews alone. These data were not as direct as observations would have been. And while I was able to corroborate the data from multiple sources of data (the different stakeholders), the end result is ultimately self-reported. There are three delimitations to my study. I bound the study to a K-12 school district in Southern California making this a feasible qualitative study to carry out. Second, I purposely selected a K-12 school district in their first or second year of implementation as I wanted to capture the planning and implementation phase while this was a recent experience for the participants. While districts with many years of implementation may yield different data, I decided to narrow my study to a context in which the district had only recently planned and implemented a DLIP. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 107 Finally, I developed protocols for interviewing my subjects. My conceptual framework guided these open ended, semi-structured interview questions and probes, to explore and answer my research questions. These are all ways in which I bound my study, and as such, they framed what I found. Ethics My first responsibility was to the participants of the study. All participants were assured their names, sites, and district were not named in the study. Glesne (2011) states confidentiality is a way to ensure an ethical study. In addition to using pseudonyms, I worked to de-identify the setting and the participants in my study. For example, I did not mention specifics of the district, as there may not be many districts in the area in the initial phases of DLIP implementation. Further, Merriam (2009) explains the ethical nature of a study can’t only depend on a predetermined list of guidelines, but rather, the researcher’s own value system. Before conducting the interviews and observations, I explained my purpose and interest to the participants in conducting research about the planning and implementation of DLIPs and asked for their informed consent to participate. Once a study is written and made public, words can take on unintended consequences. Thus, according to Glesne (2011), writing is a political act. A researcher’s first responsibility is to the participants of a study or respondents of an interview. Glesne (2011) urges the researcher to weigh word choices and collaborate with research supervisors and participants to avoid any complications, which may disrupt the lives of those involved in the study. Implementing a DLIP in any district involves many stakeholders and community members. There are varying opinions regarding policy as well as the use of resources. Thus, the wording in a final report needs to be closely analyzed to not ignite unintended complications. For example, stakeholders may not PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 108 understand the hiring and displacement of teachers, which may have resulted as a consequence of implementing a DLIP. Glesne (2011) also distinguishes between no harm being done during the data collection and interview processes, and the possible publishing of the findings. Participants may feel comfortable sharing information with me, but not feel comfortable about me publishing my findings. In addition, although I promised confidentiality, the size and implementation of a new DLIP may unintentionally reveal the identity of the district. I communicated these concerns with the participants when I asked for permission to study the district. My study design and rationale was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Southern California. As a part of this application, I proposed to use informed consent forms to have the interview participants acknowledge the level of risk they agree to by participating in the study. I sent the informed consent forms to the participants via email before they participated in the research. The informed consent form also acknowledges the participants’ rights will be protected during the data collection (Creswell, 2014). Conclusion This study sought to understand the reasons a district plans for and implements a DLIP. In addition, this study strived to understand the nature of the initial implementation phase. Another hope for this study was to inform district leaders and policy makers of their options for educational programs and practices, to serve not only English language learners, but for all students to acquire biliteracy and cross cultural skills, which will serve students beyond their school years. Data for this study was collected through semi structured interviews. I transcribed the interviews and asked the participants to review the transcripts to ensure I accurately captured their perspective. I then coded the transcripts to look for emergent themes. I used the qualitative PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 109 data analysis and research software program, Atlas.ti to create my codebook and code my data. The conceptual framework guided my data analysis as I also refered to my research questions throughout the data analysis process. The following chapter reveals the findings from this qualitative case study. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 110 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS The purpose of this dissertation was to understand the reasons why a K-12 school district decided to implement a dual language immersion program and to explore the planning and implementation processes This qualitative study asked ten purposefully selected stakeholders in one school district to share and reflect on their collective history and roles in the decision making process as well as the planning and implementation stages of the DLIP in their school district. The data collected from the interviews helped answer my two research questions: 1. How and for what reasons did a K-12 district plan for a DLIP? 2. What is the nature of implementation in the first year of DLIP in one K-12 district? The responses of the ten participants regarding their roles in the district, along with their own personal and professional backgrounds and the process they went through to plan and implement a DLIP in their district, shaped the findings for this study. In this chapter, I will present the findings and provide evidence from the interviews conducted. Although this study sought to understand the reasons for the decision made to implement a DLIP and the subsequent planning and implementation processes, and not examine the individuals involved in these processes, the participants’ personal and professional experience with multilingual learning surfaced as a significant piece of the picture. In order to provide context for the answers to the two research questions, it is important to first present the personal and professional backgrounds of the ten participants. In addition to understanding participants’ backgrounds, the setting of the school district is also important to depict as this also shaped the discussions around the decision to plan for and implement a DLIP. As revealed by the participants, the number of schools, the size of the campuses, the number of staff, and demographics of student populations weighed in on the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 111 feasibility and final decision to implement a DLIP. In the first part of this chapter, I will share my findings regarding the participants’ personal and professional experiences with second language learning as well as describe the significance of this particular K-12 school district setting. Additionally, this chapter will outline how the decision came about, revealing key stakeholders, to plan for and implement a DLIP. The findings also indicated the stakeholders’ rationale for a DLIP was centered around the desired outcomes for students gained by participating in the program. The final two sections will discuss the findings for planning and then implementing a DLIP. Participants’ Language Acquisition and Experience Each of the ten participants spoke about the importance of who they are as people and what second language acquisition means to them. Specifically, two themes emerged around second language acquisition as an element in their respective backgrounds. The first was about how the native, minority language is either valued or considered a deficit. The second theme was their personal understanding of learning another language and the struggle it sometimes poses. Thomas and Collier (2012) write, “[challenges in language learning] is especially true when the partner language does not share equal status and English speakers become aware of the importance of the partner language when they see how widespread and valuable the partner language is.” The participants’ descriptions of their own second language learning experiences positioned them to not only understand what their students would be going through, but to empathize with the dual language experience. This feeling of empathy emerged in the discussions with participants. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 112 I will first discuss the participants’ backgrounds with second language learning, because this emerged as an important characteristic of the individuals who were in charge of planning and implementing the DLIP. Some of the participants have personal life stories as English language learners and immigrants, and some have professional background work experience with English language learners. However, all ten participants had either personal or professional experience or both. Two themes emerged from the participants’ responses about their backgrounds: 1) participants grew up either thinking that language is an asset or were led to believe it is a deficit and 2) participants understood the struggle to acquire language, which made them empathetic. All ten participants spoke of their own personal backgrounds related to language learning. Whether it was the story of being an immigrant, being an English language learner (ELL), working with English language learners, working in a bilingual program, or being a foreign language learner before becoming a participant of implementing a DLIP, every participant had some history and connection to the development of a second language. Participants also spoke of their own parents’ role in their views about second language learning. This personal and professional background experience with a second language and foreign language learning is significant in that these key district stakeholders can personally speak to and relate to the experiences their DLIP students are about to engage in. This background experience merits discussion, as these individuals are able to communicate and speak to the goals of a DLIP to staff, parents, and larger community based on their own personal experiences as English language learners, immigrants, and foreign language students. This connection was made by six out of ten participants. Alice, Andrea, Erica, Erin, Esther, and Teresa, articulated this connection both between their own experiences and their students’ current immersion experiences. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 113 Language as Assets Value or Deficit System This section will analyze the participants’ responses about second language acquisition as an asset or deficit based on their personal experiences, their professional experiences, or both. For some participants, knowing multiple languages was seen as an asset. For example, Erica, the Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Services, shared that her parents immigrated to the U.S. from Lebanon and had to learn English, but that this process was facilitated when the parent had native language proficiency. Erica said, When I watch the fact that my mother, my mother was educated in three languages in Lebanon, as in most European or Mediterranean cities. She had Arabic as her base language, she had a secondary language that was taught probably, almost 50% of the time was English, and then she had a third language, French, from first grade on. Her ability to adjust to life here, because she had had those language experiences, she didn't struggle as much as my father did, who, he didn't have any, very little schooling at all, in either language. Just to think of how much more she would have struggled, had she not learned English in her school, just the value, clearly, to her life and to my life, as a result, is clearly evident. Erica’s mother’s multilingual background facilitated her immigration experience and adjustment to life in the U.S. Erica’s own multilingual background, along with her mother’s, has been an asset in their lives. Erica spoke about the value of being multilingual in her own life when she said “just the value, clearly, to her life and to my life.” This multilingual background and additional cultural competency aligns with the goals and outcomes of a DLIP. Erica’s personal experience and understanding bolsters her ability to advocate for her district’s DLIP. In addition to Erica’s parents’ experience learning English, Erica reflected on her own PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 114 acquisition of English as a kindergartener. Through her schooling in California, Erica became academically proficient in English but not academically proficient in her family’s native Arabic. This experience of not gaining proficiency in one’s native language and in many cases, losing the ability to proficiently communicate in one’s native language, is typical of immigrant children (Collier and Thomas, 2004). The majority of school programs do not capitalize on a student’s native language, leading to the stagnation of native language development. Although students learn and gain proficiency in English, this is considered a subtractive language model as students stagnate or lose one language, their native language, and become proficient academically in English only (Thomas and Collier, 1997). Erica, then, experienced a subtractive education model, which is unlike a DLIP that is additive as students are proficient in two languages and build content area and cultural compentency in both languages. Erica reflected on her own experience of gaining proficiency in English but not furthering her native language of Arabic. She said, I spoke Arabic growing up, which is not an easy language, but I grew up with it. I didn't learn how to read and write it, because I only spoke it in the home. I was fairly fluent, and I know that because I could go back to Lebanon and have conversations with people, and I was fine. There was no gap in understanding when people were speaking. My learning a second language was really learning English. That was coupled with ... Not speaking English at home and having no English reading materials at home made learning how to read a challenge. Although Erica mastered English over time, as most school age immigrant children do, she was not able to build upon her native Arabic language and learn to read and write. Natalie, the district’s Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, also shared stories PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 115 about her mother’s fluency in Spanish as an asset. She recalled her own mother’s encouragement for her to learn a second language. Although Natalie doesn’t claim to be proficient in another language her personal family background and foreign language experience set the stage for her own motivation to carry out her district’s mission of exposing students to world languages in elementary school. Natalie shared her own exposure to foreign language beginning with her mother. I don't know another language. I would be able to say that I could probably understand Spanish to a certain extent. I do remember when I was at high school, my mom, who was a teacher, went back to get her master's degree. She got a BCLAD. She went back and she got her credential in Spanish. In addition to modeling for Natalie by going back to get a BCLAD, Natalie recalls her mother encouraging her to learn Spanish as a young girl. As a result, Natalie studied Spanish in high school and pursued French during her college years. She said, I remember her talking Spanish and trying to get me to do Spanish around the house and I took Spanish in high school for three years and then I took French in college. An implication of Natalie’s early encouragement and exposure to foreign language is her ability to now encourage, support, and lead her district in their efforts to bring a DLIP to fruition. Natalie, herself, understands the experience of foreign language learning through her experiences learning Spanish and French, and is therefore better versed in sharing the benefits and challenges of learning new languages in the context of a DLIP. Additionally, Natalie has background knowledge of childhood development and explained, Well, knowing what I do a little bit about early childhood development, in fact, it starts to get a little bit late. They should be learning language at a preschool level and even earlier PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 116 because they can learn two languages easy. Many children that grow up in a household where the parents speak two languages and they learn how to talk in both languages. It's definitely not too young. Natalie’s knowledge of early childhood development allowed her to see that learning languages early is an asset and should be encouraged. Natalie’s early exposure to Spanish provided by her mother, and French later in her schooling, coupled with her knowledge of language acquisition and child development, poised her to be an advocate for her district’s DLIP. In contrast to Erica’s family’s ability to maintain Arabic in the home, Teresa’s parents did not want her to speak their native Cantonese, because they believed it would hinder her English acquisition. In a word, Teresa’s family saw languages as a deficit. Teresa was the third member of the district leadership team, who was involved in the planning and implementation of a DLIP. She also came from a household in which both parents spoke Cantonese and Mandarin. Teresa’s parents moved from China to Hong Kong to California. Teresa shared her parents were of the mind that she should learn and speak English only. As a result, Teresa lamented her Cantonese and Mandarin fluency do not rate at a proficient level, but more of a conversational level. Teresa shared her parents still speak Cantonese to each other in their home. In addition to being exposed as a child to Mandarin and Cantonese and conversing from time to time with extended family who did not speak English, Teresa studied Spanish in high school and Mandarin in college. There's a serious time in when the common thought was in order for your children to speak perfect English without the accents, you do not introduce a second language to them. I speak some Cantonese, enough to get by. It was very informal, so I can speak Cantonese, a bit. I took Spanish in High School, and I took Mandarin in College. But the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 117 language I'm most familiar with is probably Cantonese. Similar to Erica’s experience with subtractive schooling, the focus in Teresa’s home and school was to learn English and not grow her native language. Despite this “English only” push, she still managed to find the motivation to study other languages later in her education. Teresa’s exposure to and understanding of several languages other than English adds to her ability to plan for and implement a DLIP. She is able to speak to the experiences a student entering the program may encounter as well as convince monolingual parents about a child’s ability to acquire a second language while maintaining and growing his or her primary language. For example, she said, Then I do believe I was placed here for that reason as well. Being Chinese myself and having had some Mandarin background and having been a part of the whole process of starting a DI program. Teresa’s own personal background with multiple foreign languages and her personal understanding of proficiency levels in a language, social and communicative to academic, positioned her as a knowledgeable person whose experiences were in line with her district’s directive to carry out a DLIP. Much like Teresa, Yolanda, the Mandarin DLIP principal, grew up learning that only English serves as an asset. She said, I actually did not grow up learning a second language. English only, and it wasn't until Middle School, and then High School, I did take Spanish courses. In other words, multiple languages were not seen as an asset in her upbringing, so the onus was on her as she grew older to take up an additional language. Despite only being exposed to Spanish as a student, she came to her current position as principal of a Mandarin DLIP, from a PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 118 neighboring district that implemented a DLIP several years prior. This professional background experience meant that she understood the value of second language learning at an early age. She explained, I think that this is one of the most important times for them to learn a second language definitely. I think they're young, they're fresh, they're minds are open. There's a lot of research out there that suggested that to be true. Although she was not given the personal opportunity to learn a language other than English at an early age, Yolanda had a keen understanding of the benefits of it. As the principal of the Mandarin immersion school, Yolanda supports second language acquisition at a young age because she is aware of the research on it. Similar to Erica’s and Teresa’s own stories of learning English at the expense of their native language, Esther, the principal of the Spanish DLIP elementary school, shared her parents’ childhood stories of their native Spanish language viewed by teachers as a deficit rather than an asset. Esther grew up with Spanish in her household and also had professional experience with bilingual education and English language learners. Esther shared her parents’ Spanish language background and her recollection of societal attitudes towards Spanish speakers during her parents’ childhood and early adult years. I am not bilingual. My parents were bilingual, but my parents grew up in a time ... My mother was from Albuquerque, New Mexico, and my father was born here in California, but they met before World World II. New Mexico's Spanish is a very formalized Spanish, but she went to a school where when you went you got rapped on your knuckles if you spoke Spanish in school. Father had the same similar experience here being called stupid, not knowing anything because he spoke Spanish at school. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 119 In recalling her parents’ disheartening stories about the negative attitudes towards other language speakers, Esther emphasized the deficit-minded sentiments that brought about punishment for those who dared to speak another language. Esther’s personal family history, coupled with her professional experience with bilingual education, migrant students, and English language learners positioned her to work in a DLIP. Well, I started as a classroom teacher in 1983, and was placed in a bilingual classroom at the time when bilingual education was still legal, but I was a non-Spanish speaker in a classroom with fourth and fifth graders. We were doing either structured immersion or mainstream program, so no formal bilingual education program. We selected various types of instructional strategies that we thought would work with the student population. Esther makes the connection between the students’ lack of primary language foundation inhibiting their English language acquisition. Most of the students were English learners. Well, they didn't have a foundation in their primary language, so had the need for us to build both their English skills but just language skills in general. According to Thomas and Collier (2012), the stronger the foundation in the primary language, the easier the transfer of knowledge and ease of acquisition to a second language, English in this case. Esther’s experiences, personally and professionally with Spanish and English, are significant in how she views and values her own district’s adoption of Spanish and Mandarin DLIPs and her desire to house the Spanish DLIP at her own school site. That had always been something that I think led me to wanting to be the principal who began the DI Program. That was in the back of my head, working with our English learners for as many years as I did and then starting to do the investigation about the dual language PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 120 program. Although the research outlined in chapter two did not specify the significance of the participants’ own experiences with foreign language immersion programs and their role in planning and implementing a DLIP for a school district, the responses of the participants indicate a connection between experience and belief in the job they are doing to educate students in a dual language immersion program. Esther’s responses, along with her colleagues’, show a connection between language experience and professional role in planning and implementing a DLIP in their school district. In all of these cases, the participants faced attitudes towards languages as assets or as deficits, and although their circumstances were all different, each participant came to a realization of the importance of language learning, thus allowing them to push against the deficit-minded notions some of them had been exposed to. Another example that surfaced depicting the native language as a deficit, but that ultimately led to the participant realizing the value of languages comes from Andrea who is the founding teacher of the Spanish DLIP at Toledo School where Esther is the principal. Andrea shared her own experiences as an English language learner and her parents’ desire for her to acquire English without losing or feeling badly about her native Spanish. As a child growing up here in Los Angeles, I was born and raised here my mother was born and raised here, so I'm second generation Mexican-American. Back in the 70's Spanish was looked upon as a handicap and not necessarily as an asset for a student or anybody. I remember in the second grade still not being able to read. Of course if you're raised by people that didn't speak English around you when you start school you're not going to be speaking English. That's not your primary language. I remember my father being in a meeting with my second grade teacher, and my second grade teacher was PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 121 saying, "You need to stop speaking to her in Spanish. You're handicapping her and it's your fault that she's not reading right now at this point in time in the second grade." As a seven or eight year old you understand already your parents’ disappointment. I just remember my dad's face. Then my dad recuperated himself, from this woman telling him this, and saying, "You don't tell me how to raise my child. You just take care of teaching her English, and making sure that she reads and writes and does her math and English. I will take care of her learning Spanish at home, so no I'm not taking your advice." Despite being exposed to deficit-minded ideologies about language acquisition, Andrea had a good role model, who turned the narrative on its head. Now, as an adult, in her work as a dual immersion teacher, Andrea knows children don’t have to sacrifice their native language in order to acquire English, nor should they have to be told that their native language is “handicapping” them. Her own memories of language acquisition have become her compass for teaching and raising her own dual language immersion students. Like Esther and Teresa, Lila’s parents believed they were doing the best for their children in making English the language spoken in the home. Thus, Lila did not grow up acquiring Mandarin while simultaneously learning English. In other words, Mandarin was seen as a deficit and not an asset. Lila’s proficiency in Mandarin was stunted by her acquisition of English. However, she noted in her discussion she studied Mandarin in college as she felt a void and had a desire to learn Mandarin. Not only does she still value Mandarin proficiency but now wants her children to participate in a Mandarin immersion program. This is noteworthy as Lila’s role in planning and implementing a DLIP in her school district of residence is a large one. Lila’s experience with English and native home language learning, like the other participants, is coupled with her values and beliefs in a DLIP for elementary school children to participate in. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 122 The participants’ background with English and home language and their current roles indicate a stronger relationship than what the research suggested. Staff quality, as defined by Lindholm- Leary (2005) and Pena (2002), suggest qualified personnel with bilingual and multicultural awareness be in place for a dual language immersion program. Lindholm-Leary (2005) and Pena (2002) also suggest monolinguals involved in the immersion program understand language acquisition as well as the cultural heritage of the language minority students. However, the connection described amongst the participants to their students’ native languages and their depth of understanding drawn from personal experiences confronting languages as assets seems to be much stronger than simply understanding language acquisition, which is how the researchers describe staff quality. Specifically, all ten participants had experiences where they grappled with the binary between asset and deficit when it comes to multi language acquisition. They ultimately all determined that being proficient in multiple languages is an asset and the experiences that led them to this realization positions each participant to be the kind of staff DLIPs require. Understanding the Struggle: Empathy In addition to seeing language learning as an asset, the participants’ experiences with languages was also important because it allowed them to understand what their students are going through. Erica’s own experiences as an English language learner have provided her with an understanding and empathy for what students experience in a DLIP. As she said, Once I conquered that challenge [of learning English], I was fine, but that proved to be quite a challenge for me, which is ironic, given the fact that I'm an English major and then became an English teacher. Maybe it's appropriate, but that's how I learned, watching myself struggle through language acquisition is how I have come to know PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 123 language acquisition and how people acquire language. Erica was reflective of her own English language acquisition as well as the stagnation of her native Arabic language development, and shares empathy for students who are in a similar situation learning English or another target language in school. Erica, like her district’s DLIP students, was exposed to a second language in kindergarten and grappled with understanding academic content in a second language. The personal experience and understanding of how Erica, herself, learned English at school , which then enabled her to experience success in school, speaks to the experiences of most English learners’ stories of struggle and failure before English is acquired. As Erica stated above and expands below, through her own experience, she is able to empathize with English language learners. I was an English learner, growing up. I'll start at the very, very beginning. I went to private schools, so therefore an undiagnosed English learner. Did not speak English in the home, and struggled at early schooling, before I had acquired language. Then, when I had acquired mastery of language, excelled, although didn't recognize that language was the issue. In hindsight, Erica, understood her struggle to acquire English, but also to learn content, as she had little support outside the school day to learn English. However, once mastery of English was achieved, she rapidly excelled in school. Erica’s initial struggle to acquire English before success in school was experienced also speaks to the typical tale of immigrant children. Non-English speakers are not usually assessed in their native language leading teachers to believe students have little content knowledge because they are unable to express themselves in English. However, students may arrive with a wide range of content knowledge, which goes unnoticed PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 124 because the child can’t communicate in English. Until the child can express herself in English, teachers typically assume the student doesn’t know anything. Erica spoke to this as she said her early struggle in school was because she didn’t have English fluency. Rather than view non- English speakers as in some way less intelligent, Erica’s experience shows that the content knowledge is built after the challenges of learning a language are overcome. Another participant who spoke of her own understanding of the struggle to acquire English, Andrea began in the district of study as the founding Spanish DLIP teacher in kindergarten and then looped with the students into first grade where she is currently teaching. She described her desire and larger purpose in educating students to be proficient in Spanish and English as she reflected on herself as a seven year old child. Once I became a teacher I remembered that seven year old child, and the students that I had contact with, and feeling like it wasn't just me in that point in time. It was them also, some of them, going through the same things that maybe I felt. Some children were disadvantaged because they were also told the same thing that my dad was. Their culture was ripped from them, to shreds. Maybe they didn't learn that language at home, because their parents went with the flow, took the teachers advice and said, "I won't teach them Spanish anymore. I'm hindering their education," and feeling very responsible about that. Andrea carried her childhood memories of her native Spanish language viewed by her teachers as a deficit and the necessity of learning English without regard for her native language into adulthood and into her career as a bilingual educator. Andrea understood the struggle to learn English while maintaining her native Spanish. Starting my teaching education and learning that the research says that children who ... this of course is after what happened to me growing up in the 70's. Education became more PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 125 sympathetic with bilingual students. At some point they started researching that in order for a child to be successful in school they have to feel good about themselves, and who they are. Teachers need to embrace that. There became my own quest in trying to maybe model that, and trying to make a difference towards that. Feeling like I had a responsibility emotionally to my own culture, and to those children that were bilingual like me. Andrea described her purpose and role as an educator and specifically a bilingual educator, to instill pride and feelings of success for all students in her classroom. Having had similar experiences in her upbringing positions Andrea to be empathetic with her students who are “like [her].” We're all worthy of learning if we're getting a chance. I think it's become my lifelong quest. I have a lot of passion for what I do. It comes from that place for me, in that moment, that time. I feel it's important. I feel through my work and through my dedication I don't just teach children. I also feel I'm an example right here, right now, in this moment in time at this school. It's not easy to try to start this type of a program in this school. Andrea, herself recognized the significance of her sphere of influence and charge to embrace, nurture, and teach in an immersion setting where students and families feel valued regardless of their home language. Alice, like Andrea, was cognizant of her role as the founding Mandarin teacher within a school of monolingual classrooms. Similar to Andrea and Erica, the Mandarin DLIP teacher, Alice, at Qiao Elementary School came to the U.S. at the age of 10 without any English and described her own experience and how she now relates to her own classroom students as a result. Alice, like Andrea, recounted her difficulty in school and failing grades as a result of not having PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 126 command of the English language. Similarly, both Alice and Andrea came from families who were supportive and determined for their children to maintain their home languages of Spanish and Mandarin. Learning English was a tough road for me, but I'm glad that my parents were really strict on "You need to speak Mandarin at home. We still have books in Chinese at home, so you can keep going." That's how I maintained my Chinese, and I was willing to go back to Taiwan to learn Chinese further education. These two founding DLIP teachers, Spanish DLIP teacher Andrea at Toledo School and Mandarin DLIP teacher Alice at Qiao Elementary School, both came from similar bilingual background experiences. And despite recognizing what a “tough road” it is, they believe in the capability of their students to learn in an immersion program based on their own bilingual upbringing. This is significant in that they are familiar with what their students and larger families will be experiencing and celebrating as students acquire proficiency in two languages in a supportive, additive school environment. Alice shared her personal experience with learning English in the following way. It was very difficult. I didn't speak at all for an entire year at school. School was hard. I remember in middle school, we had to switch classrooms and I didn't know, so I sat in the Science classroom for an entire month. The teacher didn't notice me. That was a turning point for me. I wanted to become a teacher, because I was like how could she not see a girl sitting there for an entire month? Alice was able to recount and link her desire to become a teacher to her own past experience as a new student to the U.S. without any English. Understanding the struggle that she went through allowed her to pursue a career goal that would provide different circumstances for her students. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 127 Alice also shared her recollection of being separated from the regular middle school classrooms and a teacher’s gift of a bilingual Mandarin/English book followed by her own ability to read in English. I remember there was ESL class, so I was pretty separated with the mainstream class. That part was really hard, too. Also, I was an advanced reader in Chinese when I was in Taiwan, so I didn't want to read anything until another teacher gave me a bilingual book with Chinese and English together. Then, all of a sudden one day, I could read English. That was when I started to fall in love with reading again. Alice mentioned her own level as an advanced reader in Chinese in Taiwan. Once she began to receive bilingual books, she was able to connect the languages on her own. As Alice acquired English, her love and mastery of reading and school resumed. These are the kinds of experiences that make a dual immersion teacher, like Alice, empathetic to the needs and experiences of her students as well as prepare her to teach in an immersion classroom. Although the research provided in Chapter Two did not specify any necessary foreign language background of the personnel involved with the planning and implementation of a DLIP, the data from this particular district indicates foreign language exposure and personal understanding of and value for language acquisition on the part of key district staff may aid in the facilitation and long term success of a district’s planning and implementation of a DLIP. Equipped with their experiences and backgrounds, the participants were poised to facilitate the planning and implementation of the DLIP. As represented in Table 1 in Chapter Two, titled Factors That Promote the Planning and Implementation of a DLIP, Lindholm-Leary (2005) and Pena (2002) believe staff quality is one factor in the planning of a DLIP. However, their research speaks to the proper credentialing and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 128 multicultural awareness without a deeper description of the values and beliefs of the key founders and implementers of the DLIP. In addition to the discussion of proper credentialing and multicultural awareness, Lindholm-Leary (2005) and Pena (2002) write about monolinguals participating in the planning and implementation of a DLIP and the necessity for them to understand language acquisition and cultural heritage of the language minority students. Based on participant responses, the monolingual district personnel involved did indeed speak to the value of all students being exposed to a second language. They also shared their accurate understanding of language acquisition and importance of valuing the cultural heritage of language minority students. The participants of this district’s DLIP all had prior exposure to foreign language learning and six out of ten grew up with a language other than English in their home. Additionally, four out of the ten participants were English language learners when they started kindergarten. This discussion of the participants’ background with languages other than English connects their background experience to their capacity to fulfill their respective roles in planning and implementing a DLIP. As districts plan for the implementation of a DLIP, the participants’ responses demonstrate the importance of having people on board who understand the value of languages and can relate to the challenges of language acquisition. Although this study set out to inform practitioners, school leaders, and policy makers about the logistics and significant pieces of planning and implementing a DLIP, as well as what the nature of the first year of implementation looks like, the personal backgrounds of the key players of this process surfaced as a significant part of the story and could not be ignored. These findings suggest that staff responsible for planning and implementing a DLIP are better positioned to do so if they have PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 129 come to see language acquisition as an asset and are able to empathize with their students because they understanding the challenges of learning languages. The following table depicts the foreign language background of the participants, their English language learner experiences and prior professional experience working with English language learners. The three district staff members who participated in the study shared that at least one, if not both of their own parents, spoke another language other than English. Two of the three district participants are first generation Americans and both parents spoke a different language at home while the participants were growing up. The participants’ language background discussed in this section has been summarized below. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 130 Table 5. Participants’ Chart of Personal and Professional Experience with Languages Other than English Name Immigrant English Language Learner Foreign Language Exposure in School Prior Professional Experience with ELLs and bilingual education Foreign Language Spoken in Home Erica: district office X: came to U.S. at age of 3 from Lebanon X: first exposure to English was in school X X: prior district implemented DLIP X: Arabic Lucas: district office X X Natalie: district office X X X: mom speaks & taught Spanish & spoke to Natalie as child LN: site principal Spanish (Toledo Elementary School) X: Spanish X: ESL teacher in prior district X: Spanish Lila: parent X: Mandarin X: Mandarin Yolanda: site principal Mandarin(Qiao Elementary School) X: Spanish X: prior district DLIP Teresa: district personnel & site leader X: Mandarin & Spanish X: Cantonese Andrea: Spanish DLIP teacher X: first exposure to English was in kindergarten X: Spanish X: bilingual teacher in prior district X: Spanish Alice: Mandarin DLIP teacher X: came to U.S. age of 10 from Taiwan X: first exposure to English was in middle school X X: bilingual teacher in prior districts X Nick: English partner teacher in Mandarin DLIP X: first exposure to English was in kindergarten X: Spanish X: ELD teacher in prior district X: Mandarin & Taiwanese PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 131 As the table reflects, and the literature corroborates, the key planners and implementers should have a cultural understanding of the minority languages and an understanding of language acquisition, even if they themselves did not experience learning a new language. As such, one can be a monolingual and have an important role in planning and implementing a DLIP but that deeper understanding about the value and challenges of language acquisition are critical. District Setting Community and Parent Desire for DLIP In addition to understanding the participants’ backgrounds, the setting of the school district is also relevant in understanding the feasibility of planning for and implementing a DLIP. Specifically, the setting within which the district is located shaped why the district made the initial decision to implement a DLIP. Linton’s (2004) study described in the literature review found the proportion of parents with a Bachelor’s degree or higher increases the odds a school district will offer a DLIP as does the proportion of mothers who do not work full time. Thus, the makeup and context of the community matter. Arcos Unified is a TK-12 Unified School District located in Los Angeles County and is made up of three TK-5 elementary schools, one 6-8 middle school, and one high school. According to the California Department of Education website, the student enrollment is close to 5,000 with a little over 300 students categorized as English language learners making up 7.6% of the student body population. In light of DLIP researchers’ recommendation of an ideal makeup of a DLIP classroom to have 50% native English speakers and 50% target language speakers, it’s important to note that this school district’s ELL population is rather small. In Arcos Unified, 12.3% of the student body are on free and reduced lunch. According to the school website, Arcos describes itself as a district that attracts families PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 132 who value challenging school programs and excellent teachers. Arcos has also earned honors and recognition for students’ achievement at the local, state, and national level. As a non-struggling school with parents who have social capital, Arcos’ decision to begin talks about a DLIP were mainly prompted by community and parent desires for enrichment opportunities. The literature on DLIP planning and implementation describes how districts should seek out parent and community input and buyin for a DLIP (Sugarman, J. & Howard, E.R., 2001; Calderon, M. & Carreon, A., 2000; Montague, N.S., 1997). However, in the case of Arcos Unified School District, prior to any official planning period, parents and community groups voiced their interest and desire for a DLIP program by emailing school board members and speaking at school board meetings. Although there was school board interest in a DLIP as well as an established district goal of expanding world language opportunities prior to parents’ request, the school district reacted in large part to the interests of the community and thus the board and district leadership team set out to research DLIPs. In fact, the participants spoke the most about community interest with 63 instances of comments made across the interviews about community interest. In Arcos Unified School District, the idea of a dual language immersion program arose from parents in the community who shared their ideas with the school board, not the other way around. In fact, this is not unusual as suggested by the literature (Padilla, Fan, Xu, and Silva, 2013). Social capital is a term used to illustrate the relationships built through an individual’s network connecting him to information and societal influence or power (Bourdieu, 1986). As Lucas stated, parents of Arcos’ community were connected and in tune to what neighboring districts were implementing, specifically DLIPs. One of Arcos’ most active parents in the DLIP discussion, Lila, with her level of involvement and her knowledge of how to mobilize her PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 133 community to recruit supporters as described above is an example of the use of social capital to influence decisions of those who hold decision making power. Lila described why the community wanted the DLIP and she pointed to it being beneficial to students’ educational experience. In general I think it's because we have a diverse community. I think the school board values that, the community values that. We've been very inclusive. That's all part of it. In addition to the fact that I think that there are ... It's good for the kids in the sense of the education. I guess in general I just feel like the district values diversity and a broad breadth of educational experience. Having the social capital to be aware of the benefits of dual language knowledge encouraged the involvement of these parents to act in support of such an educational experience. This section will discuss the interest and outpouring response from community groups and parents and the reasons why they approached the district with their ideas. As Collier and Thomas (2004) described the shift in terms and perceptions from bilingual education to dual language immersion programs, which are seen as enrichment, when English language learners are placed alongside native English speakers. Based on the following evidence , parents were seeking an enrichment opportunity for their students. I will also discuss how the district was poised to react to the outpouring of interest in a DLIP despite not having declining enrollment but as a way to hold onto families who might otherwise look to private schools or other district where immersion programs already exist. An example of parent interest came from a district level participant, Lucas, who shared the conversation around a DLIP had been discussed for 3-4 years before the board actually approved of the program. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 134 A couple of years in, we were starting to talk and the conversations started. Board members became interested and we had a number of parents who became interested. That's often where a big quest comes from, is community, it's not unusual, especially when you have programs with other school districts and parents become familiar with them. They begin to ask the question, "Gee, they're doing it in this district, shouldn't we be thinking about doing it in our district?" Lucas acknowledged the community has knowledge of what neighboring districts are doing and what kinds of programs they want to have in their own school district. Parents independently approached board members about the possibility of developing a DLIP for their school district. The weight of the community’s desires is significant in parents’ ability to shape and structure the types of programming offered in a school district. Another district level staff member, Natalie, also shared her recollection of community input and the school board’s response. When I first came onboard four years ago, part of the board's strategic plan and their vision and it's on the website is to expand world languages for our students. Whether that meant expanding the program at the high school level or expanding the opportunities in the middle school level, it primarily meant, at least to my understanding, is they really wanted to find a way to bring world language experiences to the elementary level. That primarily would be through a Dual Language Immersion Program. We have a really strong Chinese community in [this area]. I think we had parents that were very interested in that type of a program and pressured some board members, or not pressured but influenced board members into saying, "Hey, we think this would be a great thing to do." Natalie’s comment demonstrates the power of parents to drive and define district policy. Natalie and Lucas both spoke of parent and community input to narrow in on and define the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 135 board’s broad goal of expanding world language opportunities into a very specific elementary language immersion program. Andrea, the Spanish DLIP teacher at Toledo School, corroborated the data that suggested community interest was the driving force to the planning and recent implementation of a Spanish and Mandarin DLIP. Other than the community wanting this, other than the district supporting this I really don't see any other reason. I'm not sure or have made aware of any other reason, other than this is what the community wanted. This is what the district supported. Another participant who recalled the community and parent interest in a DLIP as the driving force for the district to research the possibility of planning for and implementing the program is Teresa. She was the district level employee who was charged with researching DLIPs and then was placed as the assistant principal at the Mandarin DLIP site, Qiao Elementary School. Teresa recalled the partnership between the community parent groups and the district office to research and collaborate around the feasibility and possibility of a DLIP in their school district. The needs of the community, they wanted a language program. We have a very active Latinos group, and our Chinese American club. We did meetings. We did an informational meeting with Los Vecinos and a meeting also with the Chinese American club. They were very excited, and very supportive to begin with, but wanted to keep them all up to date on what we were doing. Had in our parent advisory committee our members both of those clubs as well. They were involved in the beginning. Being honest, and not really having a hidden agenda. This is what it is, this is how it works. It's not something we made up. Having all the research behind it definitely has helped. Then knowing that the community really wants it, so that parent surveys way in the beginning was really PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 136 essential because that's something where we have often said to teachers, this is what the community wants. This is what we're doing, responding to community needs. That has been a good response. Teresa describes the desire on the part of several groups to bring an additional language program to the elementary schools. Interestingly, Teresa specified to the teachers, it is the community that wants the program. Often, teachers are interested in the rationale and reasoning behind new program implementation. One of the founding teachers did comment on the rationale of DLIP implementation and shared, It was agreed [dual language immersion], and what better way to teach children? I think we have to be at the forefront of education as teachers, as thinkers. This is the way of the future. I think it has been for a longtime, but for some reason or another it's just been hard for the United States of America to embrace bilingualism. Maybe now is the time. I think parents and educators, we understand that. We're not putting this to the side anymore. You can't ignore it anymore. You can't not do something just because it's going to take you out of your comfort zone. I think that's the problem. "I've done this for 20 years. Yeah, it's great go do it, but just leave me alone over here in my corner where I've been doing things for 20 years the same way." We can't stagnate education that way. We've got to move forward. In both this teacher’s and in Teresa’s comment above, the participants were hinting at anticipating teacher push back on the plan to implement a DLIP. By using the community interest to drive their conversations with the organization’s members, the founders seemed to be suggesting it allowed them to get buy in from all stakeholders. The rationale of any program implementation is strengthened if the majority of stakeholders are behind it (Kotter, 2015). In the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 137 case of Arcos Unified, across the interviews and data collected, the participants shared the majority of stakeholders were behind the DLIP. In addition to the district leadership members and teachers, there was one particular parent who participated in this study, Lila, who shared she became interested in a DLIP in Arcos Unified School District when her daughter was 18 months old. When her daughter was enrolled in a Mandarin/English bilingual preschool, she began contemplating choices for kindergarten and wanted the school district to explore the possibility of a DLIP. As she explained, When I had had that light bulb moment when my daughter was 18 months old I started emailing the board members in [AUSD] and asking had anyone ever considered starting a dual language. One board member responded that it had been discussed but had not necessarily achieved enough momentum at that point yet. That's when I got the ball rolling. Then I started just asking around, "What do I need to do to make this happen?" This is significant as Lila’s contact with the school board demonstrates the influence the community had in shaping school programming. Once Lila learned she would get more attention and the school board’s ear with more community involvement, she set out to mobilize the community and convince the school board of the overwhelming popularity of the idea of a DLIP. Lila wanted her daughter to be able to continue her study of Mandarin and English in kindergarten. When I asked Lila how she went about getting a pulse from the community and how informed the community was about DLIPs, she explained it was a very boots on the ground, walking the community kind of effort. A close friend and I, and another friend of ours, we posted signs all around town, and say "Hey, is this something that you're interested in? Please contact us, please email us." We set up our own email account and all that. We got a lot of response, just from posting fliers. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 138 It's amazing. It's a very small community. We posted fliers in kind of the local places where people with kids hang out. This is a very kid-friendly community anyway. The retail establishments were very open to posting our fliers. We posted a lot of fliers. We posted them at the park also. We would go to the Thursday Farmer's Market and we had our clipboards in hand and we asked people to sign up if they're interested. "If you're interested, do you want to be on our email list, would you be interested in signing a petition" to kind of move it along that way. We were at Farmer's Market every Thursday for quite a while, trying to get names. We would try to talk to anyone who would lend us their ear. People were so friendly. It was quite a team and community effort. People were just really open and willing to talk to us about it. Essentially, parent interest helped bring an existing district goal to the surface and make it a district priority. More specifically, it wasn’t until there was “enough momentum” and the efforts of a few parents to gauge interest in the community that the plan really pushed forward. In addition to individual parents in the community, there were also two specific parent groups, the Chinese American Club and Los Vecinos, that surfaced as proponents of the DLIP. First, the Chinese-American Club was one vocal group of parents who advocated for such a program. Natalie spoke of community groups’ involvement, combined with parents’ level of education, as reasons to seriously look at immersion programs for Arcos Unified. I think it still goes back to a community, a highly educated community here. I think the parents really found value in exposing their children and having their children learn a second language. I touched on the community pressures, as far as the parents wanting their children to speak another language There was community pressure especially from the Chinese-American Club. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 139 Similar findings were discussed in the literature review by Linton (2004) and the findings around the odds increasing of finding dual language immersion programs in districts with a high proportion of parents who hold a Bachelor’s degree. The second parent group mentioned by the participants is the Spanish speaking Latino community group Los Vecinos, which translates to ‘The Neighbors.’ As Natalie explained, The only outside groups that I really know, well there were two, one is Los Vecinos which is a Spanish [speaking] communities support group. Los Vecinos, that's like a community group that really supports Hispanic culture. Echoing the sentiments of Lucas and Natalie about the desire from the community to begin a DLIP and the large numbers of parents showing up to community meetings as well as board meetings was one of the site principals, Esther. Well, certainly, there is a great interest expressed in the community. We found that when we started having our just the general informational meetings, outpouring of community members, standing room only in our boardroom, over 120 people showing up. There had been an interest. Besides our school board members, there was a group of parents that I learned about afterwards that had also worked on trying to get the dual language immersion program going, up and running. They also were very interested in establishing this. One of the school board members who took it on was also part of the Chinese American Club. I think that in the community there was a great interest and outpouring, a lot of neighboring school districts had dual immersion programs, and parents saw the value in that. Of note is that Esther shared parents of all backgrounds attended the school board meeting discussions around the possibility of a DLIP, irrespective of the language being proposed. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 140 Certainly, there was the same amount of interest in the community, and since we had started a Spanish ... Parents of all backgrounds were interested in the programming. It didn't matter what their home language was, and we have quite a few Asian kids in our Spanish DI program. There was the same kind of interest, continued interest, in the programming and whatever the language is going to be. I think there had been some interest. There had been a little bit of conversation about Korean because we have a bigger Korean population. Not a bigger Korean population, but it's a pretty big Korean population. The fact that the community did not demand one language over another is interesting as it speaks to the desire to have a language enrichment program for the sake of learning a language, irrespective of which one. As Thomas and Collier (2012) write, “learning in two languages develops unactivated brain areas and increases creativity and problem solving skills.” Additionally, Thomas and Collier (2102) state, “White native English speakers in dual immersion score higher on state tests as well as norm referenced tests than White native English speakers in the English mainstream classroom.” Parents who have the social capital to understand this research can advocate for such enrichment programs. The initial community and parent interest for any language was telling, even though the district had to later think through the logistics of enrollment numbers. Enrollment Challenges Based on Parent Interests. Arcos Unified School District wanted to respond to the desires of parent and community groups to develop a language immersion program but understood that the demographics of the district may make implementation a challenge. In alignment with the research from the literature review, Arcos needed to look at their home language data of current families and carefully study their PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 141 demographics. Then, Arcos had to ensure the interested parents understood the possible enrollment limitations (Sugarman, J. & Howard, E.R., 2001; Calderon, M. & Carreon, A., 2000; Montague, N.S., 1997). Parents realized for their English only speaking children there would only be 12 spots, half of a Spanish DLIP kinder class. The other 12 spots would be for native Spanish speakers learning English. Despite this realization, there was still great interest. As one participant said, …we still had the interest at those meetings. The initial meetings before we started the Spanish program, parents in the front row were saying because we had essentially 12 slots. We had 125 people who wanted those slots. These numbers are telling of how many parents wanted their English speaking child to participate in a foreign language immersion program. In addition to understanding the linguistic wants of the community, the school district must be able to have a reliable number of students native in the target language as well as native English speakers to ensure the annual addition of at least one full kindergarten classroom made up of half of each language group. The research speaks to this at a surface level about understanding the district demographics (Sugarman, J. & Howard, E.R., 2001; Calderon, M. & Carreon, A., 2000; Montague, N.S., 1997). However, the survival and longevity of a DLIP depends on reliable, annual enrollment numbers of students, which isn’t as explicitly stated as a possible concern for districts about to implement a DLIP. In the case of this district, the majority of families seeking a DLIP were native English speakers and not minority language speakers. In Chapter One, I explained both English language learners as well as native English speakers learning a second language benefit from a dual language immersion program, in that both groups acquire a second language (Bearse & de Jong, 2008). In the case of Arcos Unified School District, the majority of parents interested in an immersion PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 142 program were monolingual English speakers seeking a foreign language immersion experience for their child. Although parent interest from English speaking families was high, there must also be a group of equal numbers of students of the target language to mirror the numbers to build classrooms. As discussed earlier, there was significant interest from the Chinese and Hispanic communities, yet overall the percentage of students coming from these linguistic backgrounds may not be enough to sustain annual class additions. For school districts hoping to implement DLIPs, this finding suggests that districts must gauge interest of both their dominant and target language parent populations. As Arcos Unified continued to gauge the desires of its community, the district leadership team sought out additional parent input relating to the development of a DLIP. Teresa explained, “A second survey went out to dial in more about the languages that we would provide. The two languages that came out on top were Spanish and Mandarin.” As Esther shared previously, and the research indicated (Sugarman, J. & Howard, E.R., 2001; Calderon, M. & Carreon, A., 2000; Montague, N.S., 1997), Arcos Unified had to look at the native languages of the families it served to determine which languages could be supported with an annual influx of native target language speakers. Fortunately, these two languages could be supported by the district’s demographics. The story would possibly have a different ending if languages came up on the survey that the district’s student population wouldn’t be able to support. Given the DLIP’s principles regarding language composition in the classroom, simply soliciting interest from the community and then meeting their desires is insufficient. There needs to be continual communication and connection to the community, because this is integral to the program’s sustainability. As mentioned earlier, the fidelity of the DLIP depends on the kindergarten class being made up of 50% target or minority fluent students along with 50% PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 143 native English speaking students. The district and community have continued to collaborate around the two DLIPs as the district continually relies on parent interest to grow the program annually. The spaces must be filled with a language specific student, and the majority of the English speaking students will not be accommodated. Natalie described the job of enrollment done so far based on the small numbers of students who are native Mandarin and native Spanish speakers: I think it's pretty good that we've been able to do it so far. In the future, my concern is being able to recruit the number of students that are going to be needed for those classes, in particular, the Spanish program. We have a stronger waiting list for the Mandarin program. I think that one ... So they both have different challenges. Spanish, what I'm worried more about being able to secure the number of students we need. While Natalie shared their successes in developing two programs in a small district, she also alluded to concerns about the sustainability of the programs based on community interest and thus enrollment. The continued communication between stakeholders and recruitment of the right percentage of students must remain strong in order for the program to move forward with enough students to sustain and justify the program. The reason for this interest on the part of many of the parents in this community, was due in part to the educational levels of the parents and their own understanding of their influence on the school board. In addition to the district’s readiness to plan and implement a DLIP, the education level of the parents of the community was brought up by the participants as another factor in making the DLIP possible. Lucas shared, “it's the notion that we had very educated groups of parents and they understood the value of learning a second language.” This speaks to the social capital and capacity possessed by the parents in this district. In line with Lila’s PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 144 comments on the kind of education the community desired and similar to Lucas’s comment of the educated parent population seeking additional enrichment programs for their students, Andrea also spoke to the various ways parents in the community expose their children to a variety of experiences and want their children to be academically challenged. Andrea believes the school district responded to the community’s desire to provide a quality language immersion program. I think the community really wants the DI program whether it be Chinese, English, or Spanish/English. I think this community longs for these types of programs for the reasons that I told you. I feel like they're always looking out for ways to compliment their child's education. These are the kids that have piano, they do softball, they do all sorts of extra curricular classes. I have a child in here that does Chinese school on Saturday in addition to this [Spanish DLIP], and piano. That kid has a busier schedule than I do and is brilliant. He is the example of a six year old child that can handle three languages 6 days a week no problem. Does beautifully in school. I think that the community understands and values that, a second language. Whatever that second language may be. Again, the language which was to be studied, was not a point of contention. Parents sought an additional language program for the sake of learning another language. Lila’s knowledge of how to make policy move forward and get a language program implemented speaks to her level of education and social capital. Lila shared, From what I know, after making an initial inquiry to the school board about four years ago, what I was told was that the more parents and the more community members that we could get on board the better to show community demand for such a program. We were able to successfully mobilize a large group of parents to say, "Hey, please consider this. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 145 This is something that we value and could you please look into this?" Obviously, I think the district was open to the idea, but I certainly think that the parent and the community involvement was just a great addition to the conversation. When they saw, well look the parents really do want this, the parents need it, the district started doing parent surveys and things like that just to kind of gauge the need and the desire. Lila’s efforts went from boots on the ground and actively seeking input from the community to word of mouth. Lila’s advocacy for a DLIP in her home school district as a parent in the community is significant as the research described the need for a school district to seek out community’s input and determine student needs. However, in the case of Arcos Unified, it was the community that initially sought the support of the school district to bring about a new DLIP. Lila, a DLIP supporting parent stated, Once the ball was kind of rolling in terms of the email list that we had established, and then we had talked to enough people around town that basically people knew that there was something happening around the issue and that parents were interested in it and all that. There was like a little word-of-mouth kind of action going on, because it's a small town. Once that started coalescing, somehow people would get funneled to me, either through phone or email, but it was through word-of-mouth. Ultimately, the community knocked on the district’s door asking for a DLIP, whereas usually the case is reversed and the district has to convince its parents to enroll their children. This finding poses some potential challenges for districts where there isn’t as much social capital in the parents’ population. The impetus for dual language immersion programs tends to come from communities with higher education and social capital (Romero-Johnson, 2011; Linton, 2004). PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 146 District Readiness. Although there was a great desire and outpouring of community support for the district to consider a DLIP, I assert the district was also poised to act on the community’s interests given their current goal to expand world language opportunities in grades K-12 and their prior success with programming. Additionally, as the district had already made progress and experienced success with other initiatives, the timing was right to look at additional programming such as a DLIP. The parent interest in immersion programs coupled with successful programming in other areas, such as preschool program implementation, indicated a level of readiness across stakeholders to examine additional and new programming such as a DLIP. Arcos Unified School District was positioned to investigate and consider expanding world language options in the elementary schools based on successes in other academic areas and with other district goals. Lucas shared, So all of this kind of came together at the same time where I felt we had really made some progress in other academic goals, it was time to take a look at this. Although one of the goals established by the prior superintendent and school board was to expand world language options for students, this goal had not yet been addressed in the elementary schools. As Lucas stated, progress had been made in other areas, which signals that the district had other priorities before they could expand the world language options in the elementary schools. Of course, input from parents and community was the impetus for the general goal to be explored further. Natalie, at the district office, recalled the strategic goal of expanding world language opportunities as a general goal which specifically became a dual language immersion option in the elementary schools and said, “That's how I think it became part of their strategic plan way before they actually ever implemented it.” PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 147 Another reason districts adopt new programs is to attract students from outside its boundaries to make up for declining enrollment. This is not the case in Arcos Unified School District, which positioned the district in an offensive rather than defensive position. Currently, Arcos Unified has full classrooms with no projections of declining enrollment. Still, Natalie shared the DLIP is a way to retain the current students and not lose students to nearby private schools. Natalie shared, “That helps keep our students here, instead of having parents take them to a private school or some other district that has DI program, it helps to keep our students here.” Arcos Unified is interested in maintaining its student enrollment numbers and not losing students due to a lack of desirable educational programs. The upshot of this discussion is Arcos Unified had several elements, such as community and parent interest, along with the social capital parents were equipped with, a district goal of expanding world language opportunities, and prior success with programming, in place to lay a strong foundation to begin research and work on planning and implementing a DLIP. As other school districts contemplate the development of a DLIP, these are additional factors to consider. In Arcos Unified, parent interest was coupled with district goals, to bring about two new language immersion programs Rationale for Developing a DLIP According to the literature presented in Chapter Two, there are two reasons for implementing a dual language immersion program. The first reason is to provide exposure for English language learners to native English speakers by placing them in the same classroom. The justification for this is that by learning alongside native English speaking peers who served as models for the English language, the acquisition of English for the English learner would be PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 148 accelerated (Thomas & Collier, 2002, Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010). The second rationale for implementing a DLIP was for enrichment for native English speakers to become proficient in a second language by learning alongside native language minority or target language students. Unlike traditional bilingual education programs, in a DLIP scenario, the language learning is not considered remedial but enrichment (Thomas & Collier, 1997). In addition to acquiring proficiency in two languages, the literature in Chapter Two described the opportunity to gain cross-cultural understandings afforded to students participating in a DLIP. According to this research, second language proficiency coupled with a cross-cultural awareness, best prepared students for a future in an increasingly globalized economy (Thomas & Collier, 1997). I remind the reader of these goals and rationale as they are similar, as well as distinct from the goals set forth by the district in this case study. Although the research discusses these two rationales, the data collected also suggests the board of education and district stakeholders must be in agreement and support the decision to develop a DLIP. As the data indicated, the school board had expanding world languages as a strategic goal for some time before the community began to vocally express interest in a dual language immersion program. Thus this section will begin with a discussion about the board directive, which led to the development of a Spanish and Mandarin DLIP. Then, I will discuss the rationale the data revealed for developing a DLIP. Board Directive and Superintendent Support The research on planning for a DLIP presented in Chapter Two discussed key elements to put in place prior to implementation. The theories of change processes and leadership also explored how an organization such as a school district brings about lasting change. Although the research discussed elements of planning and leadership theory, the studies did not reveal how the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 149 decision was made to implement a DLIP nor pinpoint driving stakeholders. The research discussed in Chapter Two began once that decision process had concluded and the planning wheels were turning. In order to address my first research question asking how and for what reasons a district decides to implement a DLIP, I needed to understand which stakeholders were bringing the DLIP discussion to the table. As I discussed in the previous section, the community had a great interest in bringing the DLIP to the district. In addition to the community groups and individuals, the Board of Education was also interested in DLIPs for their schools and students. Understanding the reasons why the Board of Education, along with the community, was interested in this decision to plan for and implement a DLIP is noteworthy, as the research did not uncover this early piece prior to the planning process. When I asked the participants to recall how and why the DLIP idea came about, the parent participant, district personnel, and site leaders, who together made up seven out of ten participants, shared the Board of Education gave the directive to implement the program based on their district goals and vision. As discussed earlier, all ten participants indicated the community was an active voice in calling for DLIP implementation. Interestingly, the three DLIP teachers did not discuss the Board’s directive to implement a DLIP based on the district’s goals and vision for students. The teachers’ ability to identify the community as a driving force and not the Board directive could speak to their lack of understanding of a school district’s decision making process and instead to their own tight connection to the community and families they serve and interact with daily. Another explanation is that, as demonstrated by the data presented in an earlier section, those involved in the planning made a concerted effort to let the teachers know that the interest came from the community, first and foremost. The fact that teachers identified the community as the driving force could also be a result of the messaging PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 150 from the district office’s messaging and partnership with parents. The discussions I had with the participants also revealed the relationships between the superintendent, school board, community, and teachers’ union. These relationships and their discussions eventually lead up to decisions made regarding school district policy and programming, which was not deeply discussed in the literature. The literature did not discuss the role of a school board nor the teachers’ union and their relationship with their school community when bringing about a new program such as a DLIP. When I asked about how the decision to implement a DLIP came about and for what reasons, Erica, Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Services shared, I'm not sure that it was any more than our own district interest. I think it really came down to the strategic plan and the board's interest to make it feasible in a community this small. It really came down to the board's interest in making this a reality, and the superintendent, having a superintendent who could see that it worked together with our goals, that it wasn't separate, in isolation, but as part of helping students achieve. Erica stated the school board’s interest in making the implementation of a DLIP a reality, along with the superintendent’s agreement to carry out the plan brought the DLIP to fruition. So while the community was interested, it was necessary that the school district have this kind of programming included in their overall goals. Erica referred to the district’s vision and goals which were supported with a DLIP. The former superintendent, Lucas, explained the working relationship between a superintendent and board of education to create goals for the school district and then decide upon, and implement a program. We had a series of goals that were developed by me, as superintendent, and the board of education that we began shortly after I started in [Arcos Unified], and we review and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 151 revise annually, as our primary district goals. Within the number of goals, which I'm trying to remember now, we narrowed an original list down to about eight or nine. We didn't focus on all of them at the same time, but we knew over that over a five year period we would want to address all of these. One of them was to expand students’ experiences in learning world languages. That was a very broad goal. Lucas acknowledged that not all eight or nine goals would be worked on at the same time. However, once the goals were agreed upon, they were included in the strategic plan, and provided the district with a road map with targets to achieve. Although one of the goals was to expand students’ experiences in learning world languages, the goal did not specifically state how the district leadership would carry this out. There are other ways of carrying out this broad goal of expanding world languages, such as bringing a foreign language teacher to rotate through classes to provide an introductory level experience to students. Another method could have been to provide students with access to an online foreign language program to work on in and out of the school day. I mention these other options to show that the district had other options so it’s telling that in the end, the community and the school board wanted a more rigorous foreign language experience that would lead students to academic proficiency along with a deep cultural understanding of a language and culture other than their own. Currently, in addition to the Spanish and Mandarin DLIPs, Arcos Unified is looking into additional online foreign language programs for all students. This is an effort to offer foreign language for all who seek it but were not able to enroll based on space restrictions or who don’t desire a DLIP. Teresa, at Qiao Elementary said, “We're still looking for more ways because the dual immersion classes aren't for everybody, so we are looking at possible online courses that entire student body has access to. Again, it's for those who seek it.” Although there were online options and the possibility of PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 152 hiring a single foreign language teacher, Arcos wanted a more rigorous program. The principal of Qiao Elementary said, Again, I think to give the students a really strong foundation in that language. Lots of daily exposure to not only the oral piece but the written language. The cultural piece. Then obviously doing it within a school setting. There's lots of different classes. Lots of different focuses. Given the range of foreign language options, these sentiments of how the decision came about and the level of rigor desired based on community input, board interest, and the superintendent’s support, led Arcos to decide upon a DLIP. In addition to the prior superintendent and the parent from the community, Esther, the principal of Toledo Elementary School also discussed the desire on the part of several board members to implement a DLIP along with community support. …they [district office personnel] started to do the investigation because there were a couple of board members who were saying, "We would really like to have something like this within the district." I'm guessing that there had been just enough time for everything to come together, and again, in hindsight, I think that the superintendent wanted this to happen. I don't know if it had been a promise he had made to the school board, if it had been something he had also seen as a huge value because he had worked there, but I think it was one of his things as he left that this was going to happen. I think that's my best sense of what happened. Esther, Erica, and Lucas all shared a common story of the board, community, and superintendent expressing interest in a DLIP as the means to meet the strategic plan’s objective of expanding students’ experiences with world languages. In addition to having the former superintendent’s PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 153 support and vision, Teresa, the current assistant principal of Qiao Elementary School and appointed DLIP researcher recounted that when the new superintendent came on board, he continued with the vision. She said, Our superintendent now, he's been here a couple years now, and with him came a strong push from our school board to have a dual immersion program. There was school board interest with our prior superintendent, Lucas. Then a new superintendent came on board, and again school board very interested in having a dual language program in [Arcos] so I was asked to come on board and create that program. Then the school board approved a dual immersion program at the elementary level. Spanish first, followed by Mandarin the second year. Teresa’s recollection of how the decision came about corroborates with the previous participants’ in that there was interest amongst board members, community members, and the two superintendents who straddled the planning and implementation phases for several years prior to actual implementation year. In other words, this was a sustained effort that spanned different leadership. Teresa, who was the district level lead for the implementation of the district preschool program several years earlier also spoke about the success of that program and the district’s readiness to move forward with new programming. Teresa also became the lead for the research and dissemination of information on DLIP implementation, and recognized the interest across school district stakeholders for the program to come about, but alluded to the fact that ultimately, the school board needed to approve the implementation in order to move forward with the DLIP. As she commented, I mean, there was the school board had something that they really wanted to do. Because I would have said, you know you're right. It's not part of a standard. It's for elementary, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 154 however it's what the district has decided to be one of it's strategic goals. So that's what we're doing. Interestingly, Teresa noted exposure to world languages in elementary schools is not a written discrete California learning standard, so the incentive may not have been there for the school board. As such, the board must have really wanted a DLIP to make it possible. Lila, too, mentioned the importance of the board’s role in making the DLIP come to fruition when she said, The formal signs that it was going to happen were in the formal setting of a school board meeting. I didn't have any individual conversations. I found out that the school board was going to vote on it maybe a few days before that actual vote. Up until that point, from my point of view, we had been trying to advocate and trying to say, basically, "Do you want this? Please can you do it, but also know that, district, you wouldn't be doing it in a vacuum, in case you're worrying, you would always have parental support." We wanted to try and make it work. As important as the community and parent interest and input was, Lila’s statement shows that the board’s vote was what ultimately sealed the deal. These nuanced discussions about the relationship between parent and community desires for educational programming and the school district’s decision making process were not laid out in the literature as a relevant piece of the planning picture. Despite parent and community interest in a program, if they don’t have district and school board support, the program initiative will not move forward. In the case of Arcos Unified School District, there was interest in a DLIP across parent and community groups, district and site leadership, school board members, as well as both superintendents who led the district during this decision-making time span. Arcos included parents and community group PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 155 members in their discussions as well as in their original DLIP planning and research committee. The findings in this section show that districts that are contemplating DLIP implementation should consider the relationship between district/board and community/parent desires. Student Outcomes as a Motivator for Planning a DLIP According to the participants’ responses, all ten participants stated a DLIP was planned and ultimately implemented for the enrichment opportunities a DLIP would afford the students of the community. The district has a small percent of English language learners, 7.6% of the total student body population as stated earlier in the school setting section. Additionally, the majority of parents seeking a DLIP were not English language learners themselves, but were monolingual English speakers. This was mentioned and will be discussed further in the planning section under ‘student selection’ for the DLIP. Parents were seeking an enrichment experience which would help their children be better equipped to engage in and be successful in a global workforce. The goals and outcomes from the literature review, which explain the rationale for DLIP implementation are taken from the Conceptual Framework, and discussed in the next section. Two of the goals described in the literature are enrichment and the opportunity to capitalize on the native language of two distinct groups. The Spanish immersion teacher, at Toledo Elementary School, shared parents are looking for more rigorous programming and enrichment during the school day. This community of kids they’re very brilliant. They come with a lot already. I know of two or three parents that have talked to me about, "I know my kid needs this type of program," because if they were in a first grade English class they'd be bored out of their mind. This challenges them a little bit, because it's in another language. In this community I think it's the other way around. I don't know maybe it's only just two or PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 156 three families that have mentioned it to me. I don't know if this is the collective opinion. For these kids it's a the need of being challenged, or it's a way to be challenged to be given instruction in another language. Andrea recognized the community’s desire and expectation of rigor from their school district. Andrea shared with me the students are coming to school equipped with strong literacy and math foundational skills and are reading beyond grade level in kindergarten. This data speaks to the parents’ educational levels as well. Teresa, the assistant principal of the Mandarin program spoke to the second goal of capitalizing on the native language of two groups in the community. I think all the research it's shown. It's a fantastic way. A wonderful way for students to learn a second language, but also for your second language learners to learn English. Although our population isn't tremendously high with English language learners, it has I think to be a safe learning environment as well. Teresa spoke first about the English speakers learning a second language and then about the English learners having a nurturing environment to learn English. In this district, the rationale for a DLIP was more centered around the dominant language group, which is English. However, not only is a DLIP additive and nurturing, the program validates both languages and even elevates the minority language status. In addition to the two goals outlined by the research, there are also three outcomes which consistently define a dual language immersion program. The teachers, parent, and district level administrators spoke to the three outcomes as rationale for implementing a DLIP in Arcos Unified School District. The first outcome which is for a student to become bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural was discussed by Erica, the Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Services: PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 157 It was clear that people did actually want fluency, and people to become biliterate and bilingual. When you recognize that that is the goal, then dual immersion is your way to achieve that goal. Just knowing a second language is not the same as being biliterate and bilingual, so helping the community see that if this is your ultimate goal, to be able to verbalize that goal, to be able to say, "No, this is what we want," then helps you say, "Then, yes, dual immersion is your answer to help you. As Erica notes, it is important to distinguish between language exposure and introduction as the enrichment program a district wants to provide. Here, the desire was not just exposure to conversational language but instead, academic proficiency. The second desired outcome of DLIPs, according to the literature review and the stakeholders of Arcos Unified is for overall high academic achievement, not just second language acquisition, but an expectation to see high achievement in all content areas such as math and science. Andrea shared she is already seeing incredible achievement in her first grade class. These kids are doing already brilliantly. They're being tested in English and the assistant principle's like, "I don't know how is it they're already reading. They're reading above their grade level." I'm like, "You know what just look at it like the research is there. It's 50 years of research that says that they will outscore they will out read, they will out do their grade counterpart, whatever it is." She's like, "I just didn't expect it now and so quick." The experiences of Arcos Unified’s DLIP students are mirrored in the research described in Chapter Two. The final outcome, according to the research, is for students not only to achieve academically, but also to be prepared for a global economy. Lila’s description of the possibilities a second language brings is described below. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 158 In general I just think that someone that can speak another language is able to have relationships and cultivate relationships more than a person that only speaks one language can. I believe you can reach more people that way. I feel that anyone who's multi-lingual has more opportunities both socially and professionally when they speak another language. I feel like it just opens up someone's world. These responses are aligned to the research described in Chapter Two, providing the rationale for implementing a DLIP. In my own research, the participants spoke to the goals and desired outcomes described by other researchers. The participants of this study know their community and families they serve. The responses indicate the rationale for Arcos Unified School District to implement a DLIP was to respond to their English-speaking majority population by providing them with an enrichment program to acquire proficiency in a second language while also learning cross-cultural skills to prepare them for a global workforce. The table below displays a typicality count for how often the two goals and three desired outcomes of a DLIP were mentioned for this particular district to have entertained the idea of starting a DLIP. Table 6. Typicality Counts for Participants’ Responses to the Rationale for Implementing a DLIP Goals and Outcomes (from conceptual framework) Typicality based on participants’ responses G: enrichment 9 G: capitalize on native language of two distinct groups 10 O: bilingual, biliterate, bicultural 45 O: high overall student achievement 21 O: prepared for global economy 18 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 159 Interestingly, but perhaps not surprising given the district’s context, only two out of ten participants discussed serving English language learners specifically. Early Language Learning and Value of Foreign Language Learning In addition to the reasons listed above, which are also those reflected in the literature, this section will discuss two additional reasons for this district’s rationale in beginning a DLIP in kindergarten to continue through elementary school, which were not focused on nor discussed at length in the literature review but surfaced during the participant interviews. First, the participants brought up learning a second language at an early age like kindergarten, if not earlier, and second, they spoke about the added value to a students’ overall growth, character, and achievement in being bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural at a young age. The participants emphasized being bilingual at a young age versus later in life. Table 7. Typicality Counts for Additional Reasons for DLIP Implementation Additional Reasons for District Rationale in Implementing a DLIP Typicality of Response begin second language instruction at an early age 26 value of foreign language learning 31 Although the literature reviewed discussed cross-cultural understanding, the participants’ a) emphasized language learning at an early age and b) their description of the value of being bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural was much more compelling than what was stated in the literature. I have distinguished between enrichment as described by the literature as additive and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 160 value of foreign language learning as described by the participants. One term, enrichment comes from the literature, and value of foreign language learning comes from the participants in this study. The participants used the term ‘value of foreign language learning’ thirty-one times. This phrase, ‘value of foreign language learning’ was repeated often enough to catch my attention and merit further analysis. Different from the more general idea of “enrichment,” this phrase used by participants seemed to suggest a frame of reference for language acquisition and proficiency. And perhaps this frame was shared given the participants’ own experiences of realizing that languages are assets as Andrea also stated above, We're all worthy of learning if we're getting a chance. I think it's become my lifelong quest. I have a lot of passion for what I do. It comes from that place for me, in that moment, that time. I feel it's important. I feel through my work and through my dedication I don't just teach children. I also feel I'm an example right here, right now, in this moment in time at this school. It's not easy to try to start this type of a program in this school. The following two sections add to the literature base for rationale in implementing a DLIP based on the data collected. The participant responses, which surfaced describing the need for a deep understanding of another language as well as the value of a DLIP, are worth sharing in this case study because they speak to the type of global and empathetic citizen we as educators ultimately strive to foster in our students. Begin second language instruction at an early age. Typically, school districts in the U.S. begin foreign language instruction in high school, and some districts begin earlier, in middle school. The participants spoke about their own district’s foreign language offerings, which began with Spanish in the middle school, prior to DLIP implementation. Six out of ten participants PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 161 spoke about the rationale of beginning foreign or second language learning as early as possible because of the ease with which younger children learn new skills. In addition to district personnel speaking of the facility for language acquisition at a young age, the parent participant, Lila, shared her realization that her daughter was acquiring Mandarin and English as early as 18 months old. This realization propelled her to seek an immersion program for her district of residency schools. …she was 18 months old and I could just see what a sponge she was in terms of her learning ability. One day it really literally just clicked in me. I said, “Why is she not learning another language?” because I could see that she was picking it up so easily, picking up things so easily. Lila’s experience with her own daughter’s ability to absorb two languages at an early age led her to pursue an immersion program in her home school district. Lila continued to justify the school board’s decision to implement a DLIP and shared, A lot of it was trying to capitalize on this time in their lives, because I think obviously people can learn different languages at different stages in their lives. It doesn't have to be when they're children, but it's easier when they're children I think to get that native- speaking ability. I think that timing is a big factor for me. In other words, I think it's really important in K through 6 because I think that's the time when kids are soaking up the most. The notion of children as sponges was used as a rationale for language development at early stages. School district personnel were also interested in producing students who would be proficient in another language near the end of their primary and middle school years, and wanted children learning as young as possible. Teresa, the assistant principal of Qiao Elementary School, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 162 for example, shared how important the early years of children’s lives are to expose them to a second language. Teresa shared, I think that this is one of the most important time for them to learn a second language definitely. I think they're young, they're fresh, their minds are open. Babies are born with the ability to produce all sounds and by age of five, that diminishes greatly. Definitely the younger the child is the better they are to absorb all languages and reproduce the speech really accurately. I think the younger they are the better. Apart from her current position as Qiao Elementary’s Assistant Principal, Teresa was previously the Director of Preschool programming and began the program for her district. As mentioned earlier, she was also the lead researcher for foreign language programs and led the DLIP committee. As such, her experiences have been with younger children and language learning programs. She was aware of the early childhood development research, and the ability of young children to pick up languages with much more ease than adults. A similar sentiment was repeated by the Mandarin immersion kindergarten teacher, Alice, who shared her own personal experiences and observations as a Mandarin immersion teacher with seven years of DLIP classroom experience. She said, For me, I'm very passionate with dual immersion. I believe in it. My past experience working for seven years that I felt like positive results. I definitely think that it's important to learn when you're little. You can absorb so much, especially in Kindergarten. You're learning speaking and listening and it just comes faster. I think the earlier, the better, especially with the pronunciation. You really pick it up when you're little. As an adult, of course you can learn it, pick up another second language, but the pronunciation won't be the same. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 163 While Alice was a self-proclaimed advocate for dual immersion, the statement above highlights her emphasis on early childhood language learning as the most effective. To put it succinctly, the participants’ responses bolster the argument to begin second language instruction as early as possible and not wait until the high school or middle school years, which is typically when students are exposed to a foreign language in this country unless they are classified as English language learners. Alice shared, with a bright smile on her face, how her kindergarten students of all ethnic backgrounds learn Mandarin. It's possible. The kids really, they hear it. They do it every day. They just naturally pronounce it well. I always tell them ‘If I close my eyes, I would think you're all Chinese,’ because they speak so well. As Alice is the Mandarin teacher in the Mandarin/English immersion classroom, she of course says this to her students in Mandarin. Interestingly, Alice was pleasantly surprised when the English speakers learned Mandarin but did not once wonder in amazement how the Mandarin speakers were learning English equally as quickly as their classmates picking up Mandarin. While the DLIP literature does mention the importance of giving language development the time it needs, researchers have not specifically noted the notion of children as sponges as a reason for starting a DLIP as early as Kindergarten. In contrast to this literature base, the majority of my participants mentioned this as an important rationale for developing a DLIP in their district. The comments above represent parents of native English speaking children who are seeking to enrich their child’s education. These same parents are not seeking a DLIP as a way to teach English language learners in a language additive environment. These findings demonstrate the importance of context and they also allow us to contemplate how a different school district PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 164 setting, perhaps, with a larger English language learner population would have other reasons for beginning talks on DLIPs. Value of foreign language learning. Apart from learning a second language at an early age, the participants spoke about the value of foreign language learning not only as a discrete skill, but as a way to learn empathy and how to relate to a fellow classmate who has a different cultural background and different life experience. The participants used a combination of the terms ‘Value’, ‘Value Foreign Language’, and ‘Value Diversity’ which I coded twenty-seven times and was found in each interview. In addition, the words valuable, values, valued, and value were used forty-four times while participants responded to questions regarding the reasons why their district decided to implement a DLIP as well as describe the student outcomes they hoped for. Erica, the Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Services described the value behind DLIP implementation: I think the interest just really is in bilingualism…having students who can have a better world experience because they understand another language and understand another culture, I think that was really the value of it. The value was so high, relative to the challenges that we were going to encounter. Despite feasibility issues, which are discussed in this chapter, the value added to students’ learning was perceived to outweigh any potential hurdles to implementation. Andrea, the Spanish immersion teacher also spoke of the value behind the DLIP and its implementation for the sake of language learning and no other fiscal or student enrollment reason. What I think that that says about Arcos is that Arcos truly did it for the kids, basically. It wasn't for boosting enrollment. We didn't need more enrollment. I just think that spoke to PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 165 the purity of the motivation behind it, and the fact that they saw that it did have value beyond increasing enrollment. Again, it’s important to remember the context of Arcos Unified School District as a small, affluent community with a small percent of English language learners. Andrea’s comment above hints at the luxury of this district to do as they wished, not as they were forced to do because of a fear of enrollment declines. Given this context, the outcome of cross-cultural awareness and empathy took on a particular shape. Similar to the Spanish immersion teacher, Alice, the Mandarin immersion teacher spoke of the development of empathy as an added benefit of a DLIP. Empathy to people of color or of different cultures and they are more aware of other cultures around them. If somebody comes in and speaks to me, or a substitute who comes in and speaks to me in English, and I'm speaking back in Mandarin, trying to draw a picture on the board, the kids will try to translate for me. They're very sweet. Maybe a substitute who doesn’t know I can’t break language. The substitute may say things like "Can you please speak English back to me?" My students will go "No, she doesn't speak English. We're going to help." They will all try to help. I see that they have big hearts. They're willing to help others. They're not afraid to stand up and to help. Alice’s comment alludes to students with dominant language capabilities feeling empathetic and providing assistance to non-English speakers. In her mind, DLIPs allow students to stand up for others and to provide help. Interestingly, the Mandarin teacher did not comment on how the native Mandarin speakers were progessing in English. The Mandarin speakers are the English language learners. Although the native Mandarin speakers are most likely acquiring English at a similar rate to the native English speakers learning Mandarin, the teacher commented on the rate PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 166 the native English speakers were acquiring Mandarin and their readiness to help and assist. This is akin to what Valdez (1997) argues against in her critiques of DLIPs in the education of language minority students. Much focus and praise is afforded to the students learning the minority language while students learning English are not equally spotlighted. The process of balancing and valuing the second language equally is complex and we are all ultimately beholden to the worldviews we have been taught. Esther, the Principal of Toledo Elementary School also spoke about participation in a DLIP and the building of additional socio emotional skills. She shared that it’s about “…Building tolerance in our students. The social emotional aspect of taking care of our kids is also critical to school vision and district vision.” Similarly, Teresa thought about the current Mandarin immersion students and shared, “…you do wonder as we see this class of students develop, will they have a different mind set. A more open even ... Of course you want the same for all of your students but kind of the more open, more accepting, more diverse view of things.” Similarly, Lucas discussed the social benefits of students in a DLIP and said, Now socially there's an obvious benefit, they can now have relationships with students who speak another language, maybe they're English learners or perhaps they may be from another culture, that they wouldn't otherwise have. They're socially more flexible, they can relate to students of other cultures. The participants alluded to a different social experience for students participating in a DLIP compared to those in a monolingual classroom. By emphasizing the social emotional benefits of DLIPs, the participants in this study indicated a value added element of a DLIP, even beyond the goals and outcomes mentioned above . PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 167 Even though the literature reviewed in Chapter Two discusses cross-cultural skills and understanding as an outcome of a student’s participation in a DLIP (Thomas & Collier, 1997), and for students to become bilingual, biliterate, prepared for a global economy, (Thomas & Collier, 2002; Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010; & Gerena, 2011) the participant responses above indicate a desire for students to develop a deeper layer of human understanding. Participants stated the value of learning a second language alongside peers native in that language, and learning daily about another culture, and grappling with one’s own acquisition of the new language, adds an additional level of empathy and human connection. Thus far, this chapter has discussed the personal and professional background of the participants and why Arcos decided to plan for and implement a dual language immersion program including the desired goals and outcomes for students. In addition to summarizing the reasons stated by participants that aligned with published work on DLIPs, I also highlighted a few reasons the participants shared that were distinct from or more elaborated upon the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Planning Phase One focus of this inquiry was to explore the planning phase in Arcos Unified School District. This next section will look at the similarities in the Planning Phase outlined by the literature and also found in my study. Although I was able to identify all planning phase elements noted in the literature in my study, I will focus on the elements that were most prevalent according to the participants. Table 6 includes these most mentioned elements with the number of times they appeared in my data. In addition to the planning phase elements outlined in the literature, the data revealed additional layers of detail, which I explain further in this section. The table also lists the additional layers I will discuss. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 168 Table 8. Planning Phase Elements and the Frequency Mentioned by Participants (Typicality Counts) Planning Phase Elements Discussed by Participants and Found in the Literature Instances in Data Corpus Additional Details Revealed by Participants Establishing goals, program design, and instructional practice 62 • Keep longer term end goals in mind Studying area demographics and identifying needs of parents and children in the community 46 • Feasibility of the DLIP and potential challenges • Student selection Selecting curriculum and assessments 36 • Additional time allotted for this outside of school day and school year Recruiting and hiring for personnel 49 • Significance of the founding teacher • Hiring strategies Establishing Goals, Program Design, and Instructional Practice The district and site leaders discussed establishing goals, program design, and instructional practice, by relating these three ideas back to the district’s strategic goals and mentioning alignment with the Local Controlled Accountability Plan. In contrast to the district and site leadership’s discussions around goals, program design, and instructional practices, the teachers referred to the goals and outcomes of a dual language immersion program as the student becoming bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural. The teachers did not elaborate on the different PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 169 possible models 90:10 versus 50:50 nor the possible end goal of extending to middle school or obtaining high school seals of biliteracy. This difference in reference points speaks to each group’s daily level of involvement with the DLIP and the lens through which they see the program. Esther, the Principal of Toledo Elementary School shared, for example, the centrality of the school’s goals that ultimately were reported to the district: Through our strategic goals that are proposed to the school district and then everything from there, all of our school site plans are built around that. The professional development that we receive is built around that, so it's pretty comprehensive. We've kept the strategic plans for ... I think there were site modifications when the LCAP came in so it would cover everything, but I think since I've been here, they pretty much have stood as described. There's like five or six different components. Essentially, for a site principal, all of the programming, planning, and training come from the district’s outlined goals and plan. In contrast to a principal’s understanding, the DLIP teachers think of annual grade level objectives and in the case of a DLIP, how to allocate time for each language. Andrea, the Spanish immersion teacher explained her thoughts on establishing goals, program design, and instructional practice. Then it was just a matter of planning my day and the minutes. Those minutes are very crucial. By minutes I mean you want to be very respectful of the amount of time that they need to have Spanish, which is your target language. You have to be very respectful also of their English portion part of the day. My first task was to get those minutes per day, per week. I had to know what I was teaching in English, and I had to know what I was teaching in Spanish. Then I told her, "I want to keep the language separate and this is my plan." That's when we brought my partner teacher onboard, my kindergarten teacher PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 170 onboard. She said, "Okay." Then I said, "This is what I think my day's going to look like. This is what I think my year is going to look like," and I just went off of the standards, what curriculum we had at the school, and I took off. I found it interesting to compare the perspective of a site leader to the perspective of the classroom teacher. Although the literature discussed the importance of all three pieces – establishing goals, program design, and instructional practice – the participants revealed how different personnel look at each piece from a different angle. This speaks to the importance of including all personnel involved in the planning in the discussions of exactly what the DLIP will look like daily and what the long term outcomes will be. More detailed than establishing goals, as the research suggests, the participants discussed the importance of having your end goals in mind during the planning phase. Specifically, participants described the difference between second language exposure and fluency and the importance of having a clear understanding of the differences between the two. The literature described end goals of a DLIP and didn’t describe the difference between exposure to a language versus understanding the end goal of producing biliterate students. Arcos Unified had to have a common among its stakeholders, and continues to do so to differentiate between being fully bilingual and bilingual versus having an introductory level exposure to another language. Districts and their stakeholders need to have their own end goals clearly defined. The stakeholders involved in the inception of the DLIP were not only interested in foreign language exposure but second language proficiency coupled with a deep cultural understanding of their peers’ home culture. In addition to an elementary immersion experience came the discussion of how far up the grade levels to take the immersion experience. This determination of how far up the grade levels the DLIP will go is still not clear, because district personnel are annually PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 171 working with unpredictable challenges like how many native target language students they will be able to enroll. Here, the end goals and student enrollment, which is discussed under the demographics section, must be considered simultaneously. However, the literature describes these planning phases as discrete topics to be considered separately. In this case study, they are not considered in silos, rather at the same time. The open-mindedness and interest in continuing the program through middle school is present amongst all stakeholders. Natalie shared the discussion of extending into middle school is present but no decision had been made yet and said, “I don't really know, I know we've started looking at how that can continue on in the middle school level but that's not there yet.” Additionally, Lila, the parent participant, spoke about the DLIP extending into the middle school and stated, “We've heard hints that they're looking to middle school.” This is another example of elements being intertwined. Although the district is in its second year of implementation, the planning continues. In other words, DLIP planning and implementation are iterative and cyclical processes, not linear ones. Yolanda also shared the conversation amongst the leadership team are occurring about the future of DLIP now. She said, Because, implementing a program and then having three kids sign up for those classes. That's not going to be good. We want to make sure there is a need. We foresee the need to continuing to middle school, but possibly not all the way to high school. There are so many more choices available as far as electives, and things, and I guess it's hard to really know. Of course the hope is that it will, but we have Mandarin classes for high schoolers. Obviously these kids coming in will have surpassed these guys by far, so there is a definite need to assessing the need, and what we have as far as staff, and how we move PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 172 forward with that. That's why we're bringing the high school principal and the middle school principal to our conferences now at LACOE. Yolanda mentions bringing in the high school and middle school principal now to begin discussions about feasibility and what a DLIP would look like at the secondary level. This statement emphasizes the importance of long range planning, even though there are a lot of unknowns. Yolanda’s comment that “it’s hard to know” is an important indication of one unavoidable challenge with implementing DLIPs in one’s district. Currently, the Spanish immersion program is in first grade. However, in just four years, the first grade cohort will be graduating elementary school and entering middle school. Arcos is already discussing whether there is a desire from parents to continue the DLIP into secondary, and if the desire isn’t there, then what other foreign language opportunities will be in place? As the district leadership team looks forward to the possibility of expanding the DLIP into middle school from a systems perspective, the teachers have yet a different lens to explore the implications of the end goals. When considering the end goal, each stakeholder group has a different role to play in planning. For teachers, the idea of backwards planning was explained. As the kinder Mandarin DLIP teacher explained, Well, we know Kinder through first, but we have a vision of what we want to plan. We didn't plan in between. We just wanted to see how we could get there right now. Just knowing that by fifth grade, they should be able to maybe read a chapter book then, what do we need to do in Kindergarten? That's how we kind of plan backward. As we start to set the target, things start to pull together. We start planning the specifics. As this teacher alluded, the district must plan the program forward so that the teachers can plan their instruction accordingly. As the cohorts of Mandarin and Spanish groups move up the grade PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 173 levels, the leadership teams, including the secondary team, as well as the parents, need to come to a decision about how far up the grade levels the DLIPs will reach, and thus what level of proficiency the teachers are attempting to reach across grade levels. In other words, not only do teachers have to think about their grade level, they must consider how far up the students will get in the DLIP so that they can plan from that point backwards and have full articulation across grade levels. Studying area demographics and identifying needs of parents and children in the community Although this element was discussed earlier, I mention demographics again here in the planning phase, as it is a significant component for DLIP planning, both as stated in the literature and revealed in this study. A DLIP requires a very defined and specific classroom makeup consisting of students with the necessary native language and English fluency. A DLIP cannot be developed without a clear understanding of the current demographics as well as what the demographics may look like six to eight years into the future. Based on the responses of the participants, this section on the study of student demographics goes into greater detail than the literature did. One of the first considerations is which languages the demographics of the community will support. The Assistant Superintendent of Instruction, Erica, spoke about the languages most prevalent in the community and their significance to planning for a DLIP. That was always one of our concerns with Spanish. With Mandarin, we knew that our community, demographically, would most likely be able to fill the class. It actually ended up filling two classes. With Spanish, we had one class, because we could only find 12 kids, native speakers, we had 12 non-native speakers. With Mandarin, we actually had 24 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 174 kids that were native speakers and had enough fluency, so we actually have two classes. There were 12 non-native speakers and 12 ... The Mandarin program's actually larger. We expect demographically that in any given year, though, you can have non-fluent kids, just depending on the situation. We expect that we'll be able to continue with two two two [classrooms per grade level – two in kinder, two in first, and two in second] in Mandarin, but we won't be able to keep that up demographically with Spanish. It'll just be one, and we're continuing to struggle with finding the 12. We knew that would be a constant issue for us, in terms of our demographics. As Erica points out, the planning phase is not just bounded by the short term of one to three years out but the longer term of seven to ten years out. Additionally, the demographics within a school district can look different from one school to the next. The planners must consider these demographic changes and future enrollment possibilities. The Arcos DLIP planners also examined which site would host which language program. Erica shared, For example, which school was going to be the site for the Mandarin program…actually bringing the Mandarin program to fruition. I think of all of our three elementary schools, Qiao Elementary has the Mandarin program has the highest Mandarin population easily. We took that to the committee, in working with that committee to make all those decisions from what would be our site? Do we have the capacity for Mandarin? What would be the split between the target language and English, when you're dealing with a non-alphabetic language? Arcos Unified carefully analyzed the planning components, related to demographics, and identifying the needs of parents and children, as the DLIP depends on a particular students body PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 175 makeup. Their planning went so far as to strategically decide which school site to use to reduce the challenges of enrollment. This discussion of physical space to house additional classrooms should the DLIP actually grow in student enrollment numbers was also an important point made by participants along with staffing challenges. Even though physical space and staffing challenges are not directly linked to studying the demographics of the community (the focus of this section), it came up in the context of disucssions about the feasibility of implementing a DLIP. In fact, “feasibility” was coded 23 times and some of these instances were about having to plan for staff and determining space once the demographics and enrollment challenges were ironed out. For example, Lucas, the former superintendent also shared his concern in this way: It had to fit within a staffing model that made sense to the district, it had to fit within the facilities, and any other cost had to be reasonable in terms of materials and professional development were less of a concern. Materials and professional development were of less of a concern, but if we were going to have to hire "x" number of teachers above and beyond our normal allocations, that would be something to take into consideration. If we had to spend any more on facilities, we'd have to decide if it was worthwhile. For example, if we'd had to go out and purchase additional classrooms, portable classrooms, and hire additional staff over and above what our enrollment would normally have allowed, that might have been a factor that we would have said no, this is not a fiscally sound decision. Feasibility encompasses financial resources, hiring, and physical space allocations, all of which hinges on the ultimate “market” or student enrollment projections. Arcos Unified had to look at how a DLIP would impact their current landscape and determine if a DLIP would fit within that PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 176 landscape. Decisions on program implementation have a domino effect on the planning phases and piecing components together. Another significant part of understanding the district’s demographics was the student selection for the DLIP. Specifically, participants described the careful communication and process needed for student selection. Although the literature described lottery processes for student selection, the participants emphasized the importance of getting this process tightly in place. Padilla, Fan, Xu, & Silva (2013) stated a lottery system was put in place in subsequent years in the northern California school district as popularity in the Mandarin immersion program grew. However, the authors did not outline the details of the lottery system. Knowing how to carry out a lottery system to select students for an incoming DLIP cohort would be beneficial for a school district in the process of planning a DLIP. The participants of this case study elaborated in great detail about their lottery process as it has became a necessary means of selecting the 12 native English speakers to 50% of the DLIP class. In addition to analyzing what the participants described as their district’s student selection process, I also attended a parent information session where an informational packet was given to the public explaining the student selection process, along with other elements of the DLIP. The first two lines of the lottery description are, “siblings of students who are currently in the Spanish DI program will have priority enrollment in the Kindergarten Spanish DI class.” The sentence, which follows, in the description, states the same for the Mandarin program. Once the sibling priority was established, district leadership had to determine more details about the immersion program’s enrollment. Erica explained, There also had to be some decisions made about how enrollment would occur and was it going to be fair? Were there more parents interested in enrolling their students then there would be room for? How would decisions be made? What kind of a lottery might exist? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 177 How would students who might be displaced because they wouldn't have room in their own home school to go there, be dealt with? And that's one of the reasons why Toledo Elementary made the most sense, because Toledo tended to be an overflow school anyway. An overflow school is the term used to describe the site where students are placed once their home school is full. Sometimes, an elementary school may not have enough physical space for the students in its boundaries. When this occurs, the leadership team looks to see where there is space at other elementary sites. As the leadership team worked through these questions about DLIP enrollment, they realized the DLIP would affect all kinder enrollment as sometimes there are more entering kindergarteners for one school than the school has seats for. Lucas shared more of the details on how the process of student selection was figured out: So we went by lottery, and that seemed to be the fairest way. You get a lottery number and it didn't matter when you enrolled, but during the enrollment period up until the point where we had to cut it off and make decisions. First if we had 80 spaces, because at that time we were still 20 to 1 in those classes. We now actually had gone 24 to 1 by the time I retired. So let's say we had four classes, we had 96 spaces, let's say we're 105 people, nine of them were going to go somewhere else. But that was determined by the lottery. Now if you were going to place the dual language class there, and in determining who would enroll, we'd also touch some students from other attendance areas, that would mean that there would be additional students from Qiao Elementary School that might have to be displaced. So an additional challenge is that not only did the district have to plan for and come up with a communication strategy for parents who wanted to enroll in the DLIP but weren’t chosen, but PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 178 also those for whom the school was their home or neighborhood school and they would find themselves displaced. These details are significant in a small community in which students who are not in the DLIP may be negatively affected and not be able to attend their neighborhood school. Esther elaborated on the district’s decision to inform all entering kinder parents of the possibility of displacement depending on the results of the kinder lottery. We went ahead and just informed all of our incoming K kids what was going on. All of the parents had to express interest in whether they wanted to be in a dual program, and our first year it was just this program here. The second year was one or the other program. They could opt into both programs, express an interest in both programs. Then it was the luck of the draw lottery, but of course for our native speakers here for Spanish, we're beating the bushes to find out native speakers. Essentially, the past two years, the district has had difficulty filling the twelve spots for the native Spanish speakers, which is crucial to the fidelity of the program, which states half of the class consist of native target language speakers. The parent participant also shared that the district gave lots of information and in essence educated the parents on how the lottery system would work for all placement of kindergartners. She said, There was a lot of education around how it would work. There was a lottery system. At the information session there was a lot of questions about how that would work. For us [DLIP parents] it was basically registering for the regular kindergarten, in registering for kindergarten you have to do those regular forms, and then you would check off a box if you're interested in dual language. Then you would check off, I think, and there was an online component too. You would check off in dual language and if you're interested in what language or both, Spanish or Mandarin. Then, based on that ... And then you'd have PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 179 to check off if your child was a native speaker or not in either of the languages. If you designated native speaker then that means you knew that your child was going to get tested. Lila made reference to the test given if a parent indicated his or her child is a native Mandarin or Spanish speaker. The FLOSEM test determines whether the child is indeed proficient in the target language. Once the number of proficient target language speakers is determined, then the number of native English speakers is determined. So if there are 12 native Spanish speakers, then the class needs 12 native English speakers. However, in the case of Arcos Unified, there were 125 families who wanted their kindergartner in the Spanish DLIP. As such, the lottery strategy had to be employed. This past year, 24 students were determined to be proficient in Mandarin, thus the district decided to have two kinder classes and admitted 24 English speakers. The waiting list also had over 100 families interested. As stated earlier, the district cannot predict how many native target language students will be identified each year. In a small district, the concern over feasibility was the annual influx of 12 native Spanish speaker and 12 native Mandarin speakers for the entering kindergarten cohorts. Teresa, the assistant principal at Qiao elementary explained the need for English language learners in her district and the large numbers of native English speakers on the wait list. We do have some of our ELs (English learners). Our Mandarin ELs who are in the Mandarin program, and obviously it's a combination. Half the class is Mandarin speakers, and half is not. We have a lot of students who are bilingual so English acquisition is not that problematic. I'm sure there are other communities and other districts where a program like this would be totally fantastic for those English language learners as well. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 180 Primarily, we have a huge number on our lottery and our wait list of English only kids who want into the program. Again, the context of this school district is unique, which affects its implementation of a DLIP. Because of its low population of English language learners, this district has distinct challenges when considering things such as enrollment. Each district will have its own unique student populations to consider. In addition to selecting native target language speakers and native English speakers, I was interested in the process of admitting students with special needs. The participants shared all students could enter the lottery and special needs students such as a student with a speech Individualized Education Plan (IEP) would not be excluded. All participants were able to articulate that at the young age of five most students have not been diagnosed yet with a disability and the majority of students with IEPs are speech related. Andrea shared her experience with a mother whose child had a 504 plan. A 504 Plan is written to describe how a child will have access to learning at school. Typically a 504 Plan is written for a student who isn’t determined to have a learning disability and thus doesn’t have an IEP but may need specific accomodations like a quiet, separate space, distraction free to complete work. Andrea explained how this scenario fit with a student and family she met. They don't discriminate. That's one thing that I know. We don't discriminate as a program. I've been approached by one special needs parent in particular, two actually, who I know who's child is in the, not special needs. I think they have a 504, or something to that effect, who said, ‘I really wanted my child to be in your class, but knew this child growing up would not be able to handle your class because ...’ they had other issues going on. I think some parents they want it for their kids, but in that particular case it felt PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 181 like it would be troublesome for the child. Then they opted not to apply to the program, but expressed to me that they would have loved their child to be in my class. Although the mother ended up declining the spot, her child would have been allowed to remain in the Spanish DLIP, according to Andrea. Similarly, the Mandarin DLIP teacher shared the following, Most of them either have speech things already done. In most Kindergartens, we have some that need to be assessed. We look at that, too. If you haven't been to school, then you've never been assessed. We know that, too. We have some with needs and some with existing. Some have been to a regional center for speech and what not. It's mostly speech and language development, language delayed things, but that's most of the typical kind of thing. The details of student selection, including students outside of the general education setting, were carefully considered and accounted for during the planning phase. Arcos staff and leaders wanted to be sure to include all students in its student selection process. Esther even spoke to the learning strategies used by teachers in a DLIP and how they aid students’ learning overall. That speaks to the kind of strategies the teacher uses, and I think the kind of strategies that she uses with her students to build these language skills are also great strategies for students with a learning disability. As this statements shows, Esther stood behind the inclusion of students with disabilities in DLIPs by stating that it’s an issue of instructional strategies to provide the necessary opportunities to learn. The teacher’s job and the district’s job is to open doors and provide access for all students. Given these findings, a district interested in the details of student selection should consider how to include students with special needs. This may be case by case including a PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 182 discussion with the parents. The native English speaking student would enter the lottery in the case of Arcos Unified. However, if a special needs students is also a native speaker of the target language, this student should be eligible for the foreign language aseessment. Depending on the results, the special education student could be considered to fill the native speaker half of the class. In the case of Arcos Unified, students with IEPs for speech were included in both the Mandarin and Spanish DLIPs Selecting curriculum and assessments The selection of curriculum and assessments also consumed time as these two planning elements involve budgeting for materials in languages other than English as well as the possibility of funding teachers extra time to create additional materials in the target language. Again, the perspectives of the DLIP teachers and the leadership team varied. This was evident in their discussions with me. Teachers were concerned about report cards and assessments, whereas administrators were concerned about the budget implications. Further, if report cards needed to be created by the teachers, the teachers were concerned about the time and compensation attached to the task. Similarly, administrators were also concerned about allocating funds and justifying additional time and funds to stakeholders. For example, the Mandarin immersion teacher Alice, talked about the kindergarten report card. Nick [English partner teacher] still had the English report card. He does the English part, and I have to make the Chinese report card, based on the ACTLSL standard and I modify for Kindergarten usage and then, I would make my own assessment of the kids and then just follow the report card and I just kind of score them that way. We'll use the same report card for each semester to see if it works. They didn't alter anything, but they add on the Chinese portion. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 183 While Alice is concerned about assessments and report cards for Mandarin and English, the assisstant principal, Teresa, of Qiao Elementary, the Mandarin immersion school, discussed the larger picture of planning for a budget, which is relevant to her position. The first thing we did was create a budget…That budget was presented to the school board. And then from there, I believe it was seeing what other districts were using for SpanishThen knowing that there was a Spanish component to what we already had. For the Mandarin it was really also what other districts I had heard they were using, and also what the teacher has used in the past. The participants of the Arcos DLIP planning committee each brought their own lens to the planning picture. Curriculum and assessment considerations were different depending on which stakeholder group you spoke to. Alice, the teacher, had different considerations when the district moved to the curriculum and assessments phase of the planning process, while Teresa needed to understand how these teacher needs translated into a budget and planning considerations at the school site level. In other words, each participant was integral to the whole planning picture, because they each served a different role and brought the multiple stakeholder perspectives to bear when planning curriculum and assessments for the new program. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 184 Recruiting and hiring for personnel The final planning phase component mentioned was the recruitment and hiring of personnel to staff the DLIP. This planning component posed particular challenges for the district. Natalie shared, The challenge of hiring Mandarin-speaking bilingual teachers was always part of the discussion. That was part of the lack of feasibility of having the program, because it's not a dime a dozen. We knew that Spanish would be easier, but still, it still proves to be a challenge. Our goal really has been over the years, to have DI teachers in waiting, basically, who are teaching in English, to help us recruit really great teachers. Staffing for a Mandarin or Spanish immersion program is unique in that there are far fewer candidates to choose from compared to the pool of monolingual teachers. Recruitment and hiring is a planning element that all participants spoke similarly about. The challenges of recruitment and the significance of finding just the right teacher were discussed by teachers and administrators alike. Staffing for the DLIP has also caused some tension and angst amongst teachers as the district is only hiring BCLAD teachers as attrition occurs. Alice, the Mandarin teacher shared, Another thing is staffing. I think that I probably took a teacher's position here or first grade, whenever there's an opening, they're going to hire a Mandarin speaking teacher instead of English only teacher. That's one of the biggest concerns. As districts plan for BCLAD recruitment and hiring, this may cause concern for non-DLIP teachers who fear displacement as the program moves up in grade levels and requires more bilingual teachers. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 185 Unique to this case on recruiting and hiring personnel were the hiring strategies used. Although the DLIP literature discussed hiring highly qualified bilingual credentialed teachers more generally, there was no strategy or detailed plan outlining this process. After speaking with Natalie, the assistant superintendent of human resources, she made it clear the district had a plan to annually increase the numbers of BCLAD teachers to staff the Spanish and Mandarin immersion programs. Essentially, the Spanish and Mandarin programs need one additional BCLAD certified teacher each year until the first cohorts reach 5 th grade. She explained, Right away, we recruited right away. In a lot of times, recruitment goes by word of mouth. Once you know that the pre-program is out there, do you know anybody? Do other teachers know anybody? I wanted to make sure that that's out there. Then I have a contact with the dean of the college of education in Cal State, LA. I contacted her. We had a couple of meetings about recruiting from them. We didn't end up picking anybody that was from there. Then once you just put it out there and put it out on HR, you wouldn't have any trouble getting Spanish applicants, some pretty good ones. Natalie understood she would need not just one founding teacher, but a total of at least six Spanish DLIP teachers. Currently, the Spanish DLIP has a first and kinder class. The Mandarin program has two kindergarten classes in which one Mandarin teacher spends half the day with each group and her English counterpart teaches both kinder groups the English portion of the day. Once the school board of education approved the implementation of a Spanish DLIP, in January 2015, Natalie began to seriously look at staffing and the current numbers of Spanish BCLAD teachers in the district. Erica, also shared the plan was to recruit and hire BCLAD certified teachers only as district teachers retired or left the district. In other words, the recruiting plan was to hire for the future years even if it meant the bilingual DLIP teachers would teach in a PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 186 regular classroom until the DLIP cohort reached the grade level she or he taught. Erica explained, “Our goal really has been over the years… but we have DI teachers in waiting, basically, who are teaching in English, to help us recruit really great teachers.” Erica also reiterated you have your team of DLIP teachers in place, even if they are waiting for the immersion cohort to move up the grade levels, thus the team is able to plan for upcoming years during the initial implementation years. The teachers in waiting are actively preparing for their upcoming immersion cohort while working with regular English grade level classes. A successful implementation year has to do with prior planning. For us, like in the first year of Mandarin, it was all of that time that Alice and Judy, that our two Mandarin teachers, one in waiting. The work that they did prior to the school year starting is what made it a successful school year. We already knew what the learning objectives were, we already had the report card. The necessity of finding qualified teachers with the language skills to teach in a DLIP pushed district administrators to plan in advance, a strategy that would be useful in all schools, irrespective of program. It seems the specific nature of DLIPs and the challenges associated with getting the right teachers for those positions encouraged the use of teachers “in waiting.” Esther shared the strategy of hiring only BCLAD teachers as other teachers retire or resign has worked to staff the Spanish DLIP for the elementary years to come. So far, so good. We only have one teacher that we need to still hire. The brand new teacher for our K program is fabulous. Our first grade teacher is fabulous. Our second and third grade are our DI teachers in waiting. The second grade has really ... She's also fabulous. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 187 Teresa also shared this plan of hiring ahead has worked out and the entire Spanish DLIP team has been staffed minus one teacher. We've been hiring ahead of time for the Spanish program, and once we start hire, we hire ahead, and the teacher may be teaching regular third grade, but when the time comes, they will be the DIL secondary teacher. We have them built in. In addition to “hiring ahead of time,” Natalie described the differences in DLIP teachers’ contract language and those of regular multi-subject elementary teachers. This is noteworthy and significant as there was no mention of this hiring strategy in the literature. As she explained, I hired them specifically for [the DLIP], so when they sign a contract, their contract says, "Dual Language Immersion Spanish Teacher." Two-fold, one is because that's what they were hired for. The other one is to prevent or try to prevent any transfer from a teacher who says, ‘I don't want to do this anymore. I want to just teach regular ed,’ when it's opening. I can go back to say, ‘But that's not what your contract is to teach, your contract is to teach Dual Language Immersion Spanish.’ The same thing goes if we ever have to do layoffs that I would be able to skip them because they are ... Let's say they are your least senior person but I would be able to put them on the skip list, so to speak, so that they would be able to stay in their position. The different contract language, then, ensures that teachers chosen for the DLIP will be able to remain in the program, thus allowing for its sustainability. When I asked Natalie where she had learned about this strategy or how she decided to proceed in this manner, she said, I think just your experience in HR, knowing what would, could happen. Okay, you just put all the balls together, you go, ‘Okay, if I just hire this person, what happens if they say they don't want to be DI anymore?’ Their contract, they're still part of the broader PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 188 unit, so the contract says they can transfer into any spots, that's opening for which they're qualified. Well, if they have a multi-subject credential, they're qualified to teach any grade level. How do I keep them? Now, if I have enough and I have somebody else or I got somebody waiting in the wings that wants a job and somebody wants out, that's fine if that person is qualified. To me, I need to make sure though I have that program secure, that I'm not worried about constantly having to hire... Then knowing, since I've been in HR, the numerous, numerous cycles of layoffs and I know how that works. You've got to put something in place with the teachers that you don't want to see bumped up out of the position. I think that just comes from experience. If I would have had this when I was first in HR, I wouldn't have even thought of it that way. Rather than go through an attorney or anything, I just knew that you had to put those safeguards in place. Natalie’s experience in human resources including times of low state funding which called for reduction in force notices to be sent out, gave her the foresight to plan accordingly for the DLIP. Natalie’s statement speaks volumes about the contractual ways that DLIPs are kept afloat. But in addition to just keeping the program secure, this contractual strategy also benefits the program. Natalie continued: I want that consistency. I want them to grow with the program. I want them to be able to truly grow the program and to be committed to it and solving the problems as they come along. That's what I'd like. Consistency in the teaching force allows both the teachers to grow and for the program to grow, according to Natalie. Furthermore, for this consistency to be assured, specific contract language facilitates the process of hiring qualified teachers in ways that will bind them to the program in the long term. Whereas this section described the carefully laid out plan to hire and retain DLIP PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 189 teachers, the next section will describe the equally important planning piece of selecting students, native English speakers as well as native target language students to participate in the Spanish and Mandarin DLIPs. Another finding in this study that was about the planning phase and recruiting and hiring personnel was related to the significance of the first founding teacher and the role this particular teacher would play in leading the program and building its reputation. The term founding teacher is one the participants used repeatedly and a term that did not surface in the literature. The literature review described more generally the importance of staffing the DLIP with properly credentialed teachers. However, what wasn’t as deeply discussed was the weight the founding teacher would carry as new families, skeptical monolingual colleagues, board members, and district leaders watched to see how the program would roll out. The Spanish and Mandarin DLIP founding teachers both came with at least seven years experience in immersion and bilingual programs. Arcos Unified was very conscious and aware of how important these first founding teachers would be to the vitality of the program. As the Mandarin kindergarten teacher explained, the teachers in waiting were waiting to be the founding second grade and founding third grade teacher. This concept of founding teacher was coded forty-three times. Interestingly, those codes were often linked to – or “co-occurred” with – the words ‘Value’ and ‘Teachers Valued.’ The code ‘Teachers Valued’ was coded 32 times. In this study, participants expressed a proud, warm, and strong sentiment about the founding teacher, and they described how fortunate they were to have their founding Spanish and Mandarin DLIP teachers. Erica set the tone that I would hear repeatedly throughout the interviews regarding the DLIP teachers, “It's really important for me that the teachers who are the most valuable resource PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 190 and commodity in this situation know that they are valued. As much as I can, I really do think it's my job to ensure that they feel valued.” Other participants echoed this sentiment. Natalie, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources also spoke of the significance of the two founding teachers. I think the teachers are really helping, the DI teachers. Their passion and their commitment to this program and the value that they find in it, they've been instrumental I think because they've just forged ahead. This is support. This is what I've been hired to do. This is what I believe in. This is great for kids. I think their enthusiasm and their passion for the job has taken all those other barriers and those other obstacles and paved that way. The participants also recognized the support provided for these teachers should be a team effort and the founding teacher is not left to her or his own devices. Esther shared her observations of Andrea, the founding Spanish teacher at Toledo elementary school and said, “I think again because we were lucky enough to get Andrea. She won over the teachers day one…won over all the parents day one. I think within a month she had won over the teachers in kindergarten.” When Andrea moved with her kinder cohort to first grade to also be the founding first grade teacher, Esther shared, “She established a wonderful relationship with the first grade. First grade teachers fell in love with her.” Esther’s statements speak to the importance of the founding teacher to “win over” the other stakeholders in the school, and by so doing gain the trust and support to ensure the success of the program. Without the trust and support of stakeholders, the program risks losing credibility which puts its future in jeopardy. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 191 Esther was visibly proud of her three Spanish DLIP teachers. There is currently one first grade, one kindergarten, and one teacher in waiting to welcome the new second graders in the upcoming school year. Esther expressed her pride by sharing, Our teachers so far have been resilient. It's only the two teachers. They're good. They're good problem solvers. They figure things out. They ask questions if they have them. They are three brand new teachers to the site, so it's learning [Arcos] first before you learn anything else. It's a great team. We've worked through some of those, so I'd love to be able to figure out a way, and it's a hard one for me too because as an administrator that's always well, you can't favor anybody else. These are the most hard ... I mean, I'd love to plop tons of money in their pockets because they're innovative, they want it, they ask for it, they work hard at it, they're putting out so much. You know, balance that out too. Esther recognized the passion and pride the Spanish DLIP teachers have in their work and the team knows the future of the DLIP rests on the work they do daily with their students and parents. Esther provided evidence of the important consideration needed for the founding teacher during the Planning Phase. She even refered to the Spanish DLIP teachers as the spokespeople for the program in her discussion about the important role the founding DLIP teachers play. I have no doubt that our teachers, the new teachers that we hired, they've all fit in very well, and they're going to be the spokespeople for the programming. I think that there's not going to be a question about how well, what's happening in the classroom, what works. The founding teachers selected during the Planning Phase are significant in that they build credibility for the DLIP and gain community trust. The founding teacher’s role is much larger PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 192 than her own classroom and her own roster of students. Because this person will be the face of the program as it inially gets off the ground, choosing the right person is critical. Not only are the site administrators and district leaders proud of their founding teachers, the teachers themselves shared how valued they felt and recognized for the very public role they are in, making sure the DLIP is a success. This is a collaborative team effort and all partner stakeholders play a key role. As one teacher stated, When I came to [Arcos] there were tons of books. That to me was miraculous. Just seeing those boxes was miraculous. To start off in this program the fact that they took that ... it should be a given, but for me it was huge that they already had those books. I'm like okay we're starting off on the right foot. This is where I need to be. If I have materials and they understand that I'm not translating everything. ….. More than just books and materials I think the administration. Both district and school wide they take into consideration my professional opinion about things. I don't feel like I'm ignored or brushed off to the side. I feel like they take what I say very seriously. If I have concerns they want [to] help. I always said this that I always felt very supported by them both here onsite and in the district office. I've never felt like they haven't provided something that I've asked for with just cause. In fact a couple of months ago I told J, before we left last year on vacation, I said, ‘I really need the EDL kit.’ The reading, the leveling, like a leveling program, a reading leveling program. She was familiar with it and she's like I know you need that and she got it for me. For this teacher, the presence of necessary materials and the sense that her opinions and concerns were important to site and district leadership made her feel valued. The participants’ discussion around the significance of the founding teacher and the value placed on the founding teachers PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 193 was not deeply discussed in the literature but surfaced as an important element of the planning of a DLIP. Carefully choosing the initial face of the program, and then demonstrating to that person how valued she or he is can go a long way once the program is implemented. Aside from participant responses about feasibility as outlined above, participants also used the words ‘challenge’ and ‘challenges’ to describe planning for implementation. Participants described challenges related to enrollment, hiring, obtaining Mandarin materials, enrolling native Spanish speakers, native speakers of Mandarin and Spanish, determining which form of Mandarin would be used for instruction, Traditional or Simplified, DLIP staff working double time, challenging work, and finally the size of the district was described as a challenge. This description is noteworthy as the word challenge speaks to how the participants perceive their work and charge to bring about a new program. The research presented an overview of planning steps to be taken by districts. However, while discussing the planning steps with the participants, the data revealed teachers and administrators had different concerns, which pertained to their role. I highlighted these different concerns as they reveal the importance of examining DLIP planning from all lenses and perspectives. The timeline below indicates some of the main events along the planning and implementation continuum. As the reader will notice, the events in the planning and implementation phases blend together. I include the timeline here before I begin discussion of the implementation process to show that while I present this information in a separate and linear fashion, the processes are in fact iterative and intertwined. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 194 Figure 2. Arcos Unified Planning and Implementation Timeline This section detailed the planning elements that were discussed in the literature review and also uncovered in this particular district’s planning phase. While all the planning elements that the literature mentioned were also discussed by my participants, I focused on the elements that were most important to the participants and provided more nuanced description than the literature revealed. The next section will discuss the nature of the implementation year as a result of the planning done by the district’s stakeholders. Implementation As I stated in the literature review in Chapter Two, there were far fewer empirical studies on what the first year or two of DLIP implementation looks like. My second research question asked about the nature of the first year of DLIP implementation. What does this first year look like? The research I found provided information on how to get a DLIP started and offered some PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 195 key planning points. However, beyond planning, there were only two empirical studies cited in the literature review that addressed the implementation process and initial years. This section on the nature of the implementation will first address the differences between what the literature states about the implementation year compared to what I uncovered in my interviews in which participants shared their experience and lessons learned from the implementation year. After I share the findings, I will describe the successes and lessons learned as depicted by the participants. This section describes the first 18 months of DLIP implementation in a K-12 school district. My objective for this section is to aid a K-12 school district in anticipating what the first two years of DLIP implementation might look like in order to communicate to stakeholders what they may experience on the road to implementation and how to proactively plan for the best possible educational and immersion experience for all involved. While it’s important to be aware of the specific context of the school district as articulated in the sections above, the hope is that some key similarities in implementation can be gleaned. In my conceptual framework I illustrated the components of the implementation year based on evidence from the research on DLIP implementation. According to the research, I expected to hear about the selection of curriculum and assessments, a gradual phase in of the program, an effort on the part of the school district to visit and form partnerships with other DLIP districts, the attendance of conferences, and DLIP marketing during the implementation year. The components I expected to see are below from the Conceptual Framework. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 196 Figure 3. Implementation Phase from Conceptual Framework However, the participants shared that all of these elements actually occurred during the planning phase prior to the actual implementation year. When I asked about any specific implementation year components, the participants’ responses indicated all of these elements had been addressed prior to the implementation year thus making the implementation year smooth, allowing efforts to be focused on supporting the teacher, DLIP students, and families. Some examples of support, which arose during the first year, were providing additional time for DLIP teachers to collaborate together, additional time for parent conferences, and the purchasing of additional bilingual books and assessments. Collaboration time together turned into planned monthly DLIP meetings. In PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 197 summary, the participants stated their diligent prior planning done over the course of more than two years prior to board approval, led to a smooth implementation year. The board approval of the DLIPs included a gradual phase in of the immersion programs. A Spanish DLIP was implemented first at Toledo Elementary School and the directive was to implement a Mandarin DLIP the following year at Qiao Elementary School. This is a plan to gradually phase in during the implementation years. As I will expand on later, due to the significant amount of planning, time and DLIP committee work, the first two years of implementation which included a gradual phase in of the two immersion programs, have gone well, and the DLIP is expected to continue growing. The orange titles refer to Kotter’s 8 steps for leading change. These three elements I did see evidence of in the data during the first two years of implementation and I explain at the end of this chapter how Arcos messaged these wins and gains to stakeholders. First, I will start with an analysis of how the data I collected looked different from the research on the implementation phase. Differences In Implementation Year Between the Literature and the Responses Although the literature revealed school districts should consider curriculum and assessments, a gradual phase in of the program, to visit and form partnerships with other DLIP school districts, to attend conferences, and to have a marketing plan during the implementation year, the participant responses indicated all of these components were considered and done during the planning phase prior implementation year. Although these components do also occur during the first two years of implementation, they were all accounted for and considered during the planning phase before the initial DLIP school year. The district’s research on curriculum and assessments was discussed in the Planning phase section above. However, the participants shared this is an ongoing discussion in their PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 198 implementation years as they continue to seek out and improved the curriculum and assessments currently being used. Erica shared, Big picture logistics ... there's careful planning in between there, because had we not done all the learning objectives, and had we not done all the report card, I think we wouldn't have had as successful of an implementation year. Then, as you're implementing, you're reflecting, and you're revising, and you're refining for the following year. Thus, the selection of curriculum and assessments straddles the planning and implementation phases of a DLIP. The participants also shared as the program grows into the following grade level each year, the expectation of examining the new grade level report card and learning targets needs attention and planning. Esther shared, We decided that we would use the same report card we're using for our English program. We're still in the process of evaluating that. That's one piece we're kind of figuring out. Our teacher uses for writing assessment it's just a writing prompt, so everybody is using that. As we move up through the grades again, that's the advantage of having Spanish, everything will be developed in Spanish. For our math, we're using the embedded assessments in the programs, so those are available in English and Spanish, so that was easy. For reading, because we're using reading levels, we're doing running records, and we can do those in Spanish as well to mark growth. Esther’s comment that they’re “still in the process of evaluating that” points to the district having planned and put into place the report cards, but that in the implementation phase, the considerations shift to a more evaluator tone. In other words, curriculum and assessment is not a component that will be dealt with, decided upon, and then completed during the planning phase PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 199 but rather a constant work in progress. The curriculum and assessment is a component that needs to be thought of as a continuous thread woven into and between all grade levels of the DLIP. Thus, time and funds need to be considered by stakeholders to keep DLIP programming current. Esther explained, We're still in the process of looking at an ELA/ELD. We don't have that curriculum yet. We adopted Math Expressions, which was written in Spanish, so we were able to use that. This year we're doing a pilot. We'll pick an ELA/ELD program that may be the one of the ones that we're piloting, Benchmark, has been approved for dual curriculum. I think one of two, so that might be the approach. We're also buying level books because that's where the district is also going. On our campus we have a lot of teachers who have adopted the workshop approach, so they're interested in developing their library, their reading library. Right now we've set aside some funds for ... There was a thousand dollars set aside for our dual programs to get additional funding for books, and then we'll probably use some Title III money for some additional books for our teachers. As Esther’s comment highlights, the planning phase brings with it key decisions for curriculum, but while some may be finalized, the curriculum discussions continue into the implementation year. Just as curriculum and assessments were researched and discussed prior to implementation, so was the suggestion, according to the research, for a gradual phase in of the DLIPs. The next section will discuss the nature of a gradual implementation of DLIPs. Gradual phase in. When the school board of education approved the implementation of a DLIP in January of 2015, the directive specified for Spanish/English implementation in the 2015-16 school year followed by Mandarin/English implementation in 2016-17. This gradual phase in of one DLIP at one site followed by a second DLIP at a second site allowed for the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 200 district and site leadership teams to plan for the first implementation year, refine the details, hire teachers, select students, and move into the second year with newfound knowledge and experience. Esther, principal of Toledo Elementary School, shared how the leadership teams communicated this with the teachers and community. We talked a little bit about the distinctions between the types of programming. For the first year, we talked about why Spanish was chosen over Mandarin, and that was based on the fact that we knew that there were a lot of viable resources that were available. We wanted to ensure that this program got off to the right kind of start should we go ahead and continue implementation and use a different language, and maybe another language would be added, but it would not be here. Esther, along with the district leadership team continued to communicate with stakeholders in DLIP committee meetings as well as monthly district DLIP meetings, emphasizing the desire to get “off to the right kind of start.” The founding Spanish immersion teacher at Toledo elementary also shared the advantages of a gradual phase in of the Spanish immersion program at one site first: For the community at large they want it, they support it, and I think they'll do anything and everything that it takes for it to be successful, and to help it's success. The administration in my opinion, and in my experience with other districts they have done an extremely good job at trying to make it work thus far. They're doing all the right things that need to be done. I think that there's always room for improvement. Ideally for me, two teachers at a time. I understand why it can't be done and it's difficult to push things on people, or force things. Maybe that's a very harsh word, but it's difficult. The process is slow. You got to take it a little bit at a time. You just can't throw something at PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 201 somebody and expect for them to catch it. It has to be a little bit at a time. Maybe this is how it's supposed to start. Andrea refered to ideally having two teachers at a time. Due to the enrollment of twelve native Spanish speakers and classroom space available, one Spanish immersion teacher founded the program with one classroom cohort instead of two classrooms. Researchers such as Padilla, Fan, Xu , & Silva (2013) suggest beginning a DLIP with two classrooms and two bilingual credentialed teachers as this provides a built in support system and team for the founding teachers. Additionally, should there be student attrition throughout the years, the immersion program would begin with a large enough group and be able to move up the grade levels. But while Andrea’s comment reflects the recommendation made in the literature, she also understood the challenges and logistics of doing so. Andrea makes the point new programs, such as a DLIP need to be implemented at the appropriate speed to “make it work.” Hiring and attrition. Creating a plan for hiring and staffing, while an important consideration in the planning phase, continued as part of the discussion during the first year of implementation and another reason for a gradual phase in of the DLIP. Dr. Esther shared she had many discussions about how the DLIP would be staffed in the future. We talked a little bit about that. Then the other bit of information was all along the way talking about how we would not have to pink slip any teachers. That was constant communication that we were going to implement. We were going to implement slowly so that way through attrition we'd be able to add on our staff members. Esther stated teachers were concerned about the future staffing of the program and there was a lot of worry on the part of monolingual teachers about job displacement. Earlier in the Planning section discussion, Natalie also discussed how the gradual phase in model of two language PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 202 immersion programs over two years, aided in the hiring and attrition of staff. As teachers retired or left the district, BLCAD teachers would be hired on in anticipation of the annual new grade level cohort of students moving up. This would both ease the concerns of monolingual teachers worried about displacement, while also setting the district up for having a sustainable teaching force for DLIP. Visiting and forming partnerships, attending conferences, and marketing. Finally, the literature discussed visiting and forming partnerships, attending conferences, and marketing during the implementation year. However, all of the participants stated these were elements that occurred in the planning phase, prior to implementation. In fact, the prior superintendent, who retired before implementation shared he reached out to a neighboring school district with a DLIP as well as a consultant about three years prior to implementation. I sent a group of people, including some principals, we had a couple of curriculum specialists that I sent, and a couple of potential other key people who visited these schools that had programs going. [One north of us and two to the west]. They visited classrooms and talked to teachers and talked to principals to just get a sense of the decisions that they had to make and implement. I included our business person, because there would have to be business decisions. I included the principals. Then we started talking about what were some of the things that we would need to take a look at to be able to make an informed decision. I also reached out to the person that I mentioned from [the west], who had become a consultant at this point. I don't know if you were aware of the role that she played, but at the early point I identified her as our local expert in the area because she had been instrumental in starting these programs in [the west] and she had worked with some other districts to help them get their programs going. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 203 As stated by the superintendent, partnerships started long before implementation in order to facilitate the successful planning of a DLIP in this district. Even though these partnerships were established early on, they carried into the implementation years. Teresa shared the significance of the partnerships into the implementation years. Help from the outside for sure. Went to [nearby district to the west], a lot. And visited other sites. There's a private catholic school that's doing both Spanish and Mandarin at the same time. A bunch of us went over there. So, just being very grateful for that community of dual language, and knowing it's important that you know that you can't do it by yourself. Teresa also expressed the relationship built between her own district and the neighboring DLIP district as Teresa researched, planned, and implemented the program. They always said, "This is what we did. It worked with this language. Also great with this language. We tried it this way." I felt very much like they were like the big sister, brother, walking us through it. For a district interested in planning and implementing a DLIP, this kind of support and relationship with a sister district that has already experienced planning and implementation of a DLIP, is vital. Also noteworthy is the amount of time that elapsed between point of contact and implementation was approximately three years. This process of partnering was sustained over time and allowed for careful planning and learning of lessons. In addition to forming partnership, the attendance of conferences for the DLIP teachers and site leaders was initiated during the planning phase, but it also continued into the implementation years. Teresa shared a few highlights of the training and conferences for the DLIP teachers and site leaders. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 204 Last summer our Mandarin teacher went to Taiwan for a training for PD. She went for two weeks I think. We would like to continue on obviously with more conferences. It's just so many other pieces and things. As far as we had a PD for science, the five E's. The teachers are a part of that, so it really wasn't a lot of separate training. I guess going to Taiwan was a big deal. She needed to go. The district has been very supportive of conferences about this. I think it would be great to send our Mandarin teacher, our partner English teacher, for K and 1. To build that team. Teresa’s comment about the district’s support is important to note here, because conference attendance that is meaningful is likely to be resource intensive. Esther also shared Teresa, who led the research and planning phases, arranged for principals to attend a Los Angeles County Office of Education workshop on how to implement a DLIP. They gave us the beginning framework of it. We also went through ... I think is before we started the program too ... we went to some of the county trainings that they do. Dual Immersion 101. They received the different ... I think it's eight different components you have that you want to make sure that you have in planning your program that you have in place. They acted as guides for us. We didn't have anybody else come and help us pen anything. In addition to attending conferences to improve instruction, district personnel are also attending Los Angeles County Office of Education workshops to discuss bridging the elementary program with the middle school. Teresa added, We are now going to LACOE workshops that focus on moving forward. That is including our principal from middle school, and our principal from high school. Thus, attending conferences and workshops occurred in both the planning and implementation PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 205 phases despite the literature’s emphasis on conference attendance during implementation. Involvement during different time points facilitates different kinds of decision making, as alluded to in Teresa’s comment about “now… a focus on moving forward.” The learning needs are different in these two phases, so involvement must be throughout both phases. So while the planning phase workshops helped them anticipate challenges to consider and plan for, currently, during implementation, the district is looking at the possible growth of the DLIP into middle school. The final component of implementation from the research and my conceptual framework is marketing. The participants shared there was so much interest and support of the program in this particular community prior to the board’s decision to implement that they really did not have a need to market the program but rather inform their community about goals and objectives as well as the space limitations. However, Esther still visits community preschools, as I mentioned in the planning section to recruit students for the Spanish immersion program. Each school also conducts regularly scheduled tours for interested families as well. Now, in the implementation years, Teresa described the evolution of their marketing in this way: Our role I think becomes moving forward registration for the coming school year. We have our parent information meeting on February 6. It's getting that PowerPoint up to date. Getting that ready. Creating the flyers. Updating the flyers. It's a lot of little things that have to get done. Making sure everybody's aware that it's happening. You send liaisons to all the local preschools along with the flyers attached. You send an email to all the principals and AP with all the flyers attached. You send it to all PTA people. You make sure that the assistant director of instruction, is going to send a blast thing to the newspaper. They're going to post something really soon about our meeting coming up. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 206 Essentially, this school district does not find the need for more marketing other than regular communication regarding the upcoming DLIP enrollment process. It’s important to note that this is the case given the context and community within which this district is located where there is already interest on the part of parents. However, as I’ve stated earlier, there will be a need to supply the Spanish immersion and Mandarin immersion classes with native speakers. The participants did not discuss whether the district would market the program for native speaking families in the future. Successes and lessons learned during implementation. As I described earlier, overall the participants felt the implementation year went as smooth and as successfully as it did because of the time spent planning. There were four topics around successes and lessons learned that emerged from the interviews, and merit discussion. The first is the significance of the monthly dual immersion meetings attended by the teachers, site leaders, and Assistant Superintendent of Instruction. The participants referred to these monthly meetings as check in meetings. Next is the acknowledgement and acceptance on the part of the DLIP teachers, site, and district leaders that implementation and the following years will be in a flux of constant refinement. The participants used the term constant refinement as they described the implementation years. Third, the participants shared they wish they had done a more thorough job of informing the larger teaching staff of what the DLIP would look like and why the district was implementing such a program. Finally, the participants linked the idea of implementation to looking to the future of the program. This section will describe these topics as the participants reflected on what they have learned in the first 18 months of implementation. Erica shared monthly check in meetings were regularly scheduled to support and refine the program. These check in meetings were perceived by the participants to be an important PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 207 reason for a successful implementation year. In the literature review, support, as a factor to promote planning and implementation was identified in the form of collaboration and planning time for teachers as well as administrators (Lindholm-Leary, 2005; Linton, 2004; Pena, 2002). Aligned with this idea drawn from the literature, Erica explained the nature of the monthly check in meetings in the following way, All of our meetings were about, "How are things going in Spanish?" The teacher was part of the meeting, as well as the principal and assistant principal. Then, what are our next steps for Mandarin? There was a constant check-in process. Then, there was a share-out. Again, the teachers and the principals would share out with their sites whatever was happening in the committee, especially important decisions that were made, like school site location 50:50 for language, traditional versus simplified. All of those decisions were being communicated out as they were being made, as they were being recommended by the committee. Erica’s comment about sharing out is consistent with the recommendation by researchers who recommend collaboration and time for teachers and administrators to plan. Additionally, Teresa, the assistant principal of Qiao elementary shared the value of the monthly meetings. Monthly, I meet with Erica and the assistant principal from [Toledo]. All we do is talk about dual immersion and what we're going to do. We're in the process of creating a promotional video about the program. The master plan has to be written, and getting the PowerPoint ready for the parent meeting. We talk about a lot of these logistics, and any other concerns that come from instruction that get passed down to us. By design, my positions supposed to be 60% Qiao AP, 40% support of the dual immersion Mandarin. It's all together. It's kind of what happens. A big part of my responsibilities is making PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 208 sure that that program's okay. Again it's being visible. It's letting parents know who they can come to. Making sure the teachers know who they can come to and know that they are supported. It's again, nothing different than any other family here. Making sure everyone's happy, and they feel like they have what they need. Teresa acknowledged part of her role is to continue to support the newly implemented DLIP. The monthly meetings provide a time and space for Teresa to receive feedback and strategize on how to support teachers and administrators. In a conference at the California Association of Bilingual Educators (CABE), Thomas and Collier (personal communication, March 30, 2017) also stated one of the most important pieces during implementation is to allow for and build in planning and meeting time for the new dual immersion team. As I’ve shared earlier, in addition to creating blocks of planning time during the implementation year, planning and allowing time for strategizing the implementation year is critical. Erica emphasized that the leadership team recognized the need for DLIP planning time for teachers and administrators. Yeah, that's a barrier and a challenge of time. We did give both the founding teacher and our DI Mandarin teacher in waiting time last year to work on learning objectives, to work on "I can" statements, to work on curriculum development, to work on report card development. We knew going into it that we wanted them to start the year having already created a lot, so that they weren't overwhelmed their first year. The need for districts to anticipate and build in planning time during the implementation year is further demonstrated by Erica’s reflection on the implementation year. She believes the work is not finished once the program reaches implementation year. The program continues to receive refinement and fine-tuning. Erica shared, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 209 Then it becomes about the detailed planning. All of ... the best practices that'll be part of the program and how you logistically make them a reality in the implementation. From deciding what subjects are taught in which language ... a lot of decisions are made that in the implementation year is the year double-check that those decisions were the right decisions. I feel like in all things in education that there's a constant revision process. Yes, we developed the kinder report card, but now that Alice has been halfway through a year with the kinder students, she'll need time next summer to re-envision that. The monthly meetings and expectation that teachers will need additional time for revisions and adjustments to ensure the program continues to be implemented well, is a consideration for new districts when anticipating their implementation year. Although one would expect extra time needed in any program implementation year, whether for a DLIP or otherwise, the Arcos DLIP team met regularly and scheduled time with fidelity. As Erica referenced in the prior passage and stated again, “It's a constant refinement, and the implementation year is the first year that you really spend reflecting and refining for the following year.” Similarly, Yolanda, the principal of Qiao Elementary School described her role during the first implementation year. My role is at this point becomes more supportive of the teacher. Making sure she has what she needs, because she's still figuring it out as well. Now she's looking at some books for reader’s workshop. Getting the prices for that, checking it out, talking to our assistant director of instruction about purchasing all that. Yolanda is conscious of the continuous need for support of the teacher as well as to facilitate the improvement of the DLIP. As the principal, and key proponent of the DLIP at her school site, she is advocating for the needs of the teacher, her students, and the new program. Finally, Teresa described the kindergartners in the Mandarin DLIP with a great sense of pride and shared, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 210 They're kindergarten. You're going to love it. But, seeing all these kids of very diverse backgrounds, which is fabulous, speaking Mandarin. Singing songs in Mandarin. Following the teachers directions in Mandarin. You see that she's not breaking language. It's been very rewarding, kind of seeing the pay off now after all these years of thinking about it and talking about it, and presenting about it. To finally have it is like, "Wow, we did it." Now move on. Take a breath for a second. And we're back at it. It's definitely been great. The staff is really wonderful, and having the right teacher in place. Very key. Everything else can kind of be worked out. Again, the notion of continuous evaluation and refinement is evident. Successes are recognized and celebrated yet the work continues. As Teresa reminds the reader, the teacher is key and all else can be figured out during implementation year. It is important to note, though, that in this instance and in a few other instances as demonstrated above, the staff’s excitement about the progress they are seeing in the DLIP students centered around the English speakers being able to pick up Mandarin. There was no mention of the Mandarin or Spanish speakers learning English. While it’s possible that this was because the Mandarin and Spanish speakers in this district also knew English given the affluent context of this particular community and may not have been technically labeled as English Language Learners, this focus on the native English speakers is disheartening and speaks to the district’s real desires to accommodate a particular set of families. This is not to say that Arcos is wrong to be excited about Mandarin or Spanish language acquisition in their native English speaking students. Rather, it is telling that participants focused on this instead of also showing excitement for the other 50% of students enrolled in DLIP classes. This demonstrates the power PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 211 and dominance of the English language in this country and the unfortunate reality that excellent programs like DLIPs are more likely to be implemented with enrichment in mind. In addition to allocating time for planning and refinement of the DLIP during the implementation year, the participants also reflected on their strategy, done during the planning phase, to inform the larger school community of the school board directive to implement the program. Despite the efforts of the district and site leaders to communicate the purpose and goals of the DLIP at staff meetings, board meetings, and DLIP community meetings, the participants shared teachers reported not understanding why implementation was going to take place. The participants acknowledged staff buy in is important for a DLIP, which is a program within a larger school community, to be embraced by all. Calderon and Carreon’s (2000) emphasized the importance of collaboration between the monolingual teachers of regular classrooms and the bilingual teachers of the DLIP classrooms. In order for the monolingual teachers to embrace the DLIP and understand their partnership role in the program, districts should consider providing informational sessions to increase awareness and ultimately buy-in from the larger staff. Although Arcos USD provided information sessions during the planning phase for teachers during staff meetings and diligently recorded questions to which they publicly responded to, the participants reflected they could have done more of this even into the implementation year. Although familiarizing staff about DLIPs and gaining staff buy-in is discussed as a planning element, the participants’ responses indicate informational sessions and DLIP updates should continue into the implementation year, specifically for the teachers and staff members of the DLIP school sites. Erica shared, …maybe that's something that we need to work on to help non-DI teachers understand what the DI program is all about, is to help them understand the type of training that the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 212 DI teachers experience. No, I don't think we have been cognizant of that. We've been more cognizant of the reverse, just making the DI teachers are involved in the other trainings that we have for other teachers. The school district continues to hold public community DLIP informational sessions, tours of the DLIP schools, and provide school board updates. However, the teachers and staff members of the school sites have not received additional informational sessions or DLIP updates. In addition to informing current staff of DLIP updates to ensure a feeling of inclusion, new DLIP teachers need to be strategically added to and made to feel welcome on the larger staff team. Not only is staff buy-in important to continue to build during implementation year, ensuring the new DLIP teachers feel welcome and part of the teaching team is also equally important. Teresa shared, Staff buy in early on is very important. A lot of that tone is set from above. Making sure that they [DLIP teachers] feel comfortable coming to all of our staff parties. Just little things like that. Building the community for them, because they're new to Qiao, and we really want them to feel comfortable here. It's both ways. As Teresa implied, the bilingual and monolingual teachers are all part of the school community. The DLIP teacher partners with an English teacher as they both provide instruction in only one language. Thus, the Spanish DLIP teacher gives instruction in Spanish, never breaking language to speak English, while the English teacher provides English instruction to the same group of students. I remind the reader of the details of the model to illustrate the need for a strong partnership between the two teachers. Each site determines differently who the English partner teacher will be. At one site, there was a teacher who volunteered and at the second site, the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 213 English teacher was determined by lowest seniority. The English teacher who was appointed to the position shared, The teacher input, there wasn't any real input. I think they did all the surveys of parents. I'm just surprised how fast it started, and then, we're doing it this year. That's kind of crazy. Okay. Then, all the teachers were like what's it going to look like long term? We never were presented with a plan. Again, the people who kind of spearheaded it aren’t with us either, so it was kind of we're working together to figure out how it's going. We have a couple Administrators who are still here who are all kind of just doing it. Knowing that I was going to be the non-speaking teacher here, I participated in trips to other schools, like to [the west] to see how they do it and stuff and see what happens in school. This participant is an ideal English partner teacher match in that he grew up with Mandarin in the home and continues to speak with his parents in Mandarin. He understands how a child acquires two languages at the same time as he himself has this childhood experience. Despite this initial response, Nick later shared, “I was like okay. They're like well, who are they going to hire? Then, I get an email this Summer. ‘Hi, what are we doing?’ I was like, ‘Okay, let's do it.’” Now, half way through implementation year, Nick enjoys his work and is himself astounded at the level of Mandarin and English language acquisition and literacy skills of all students in both languages. Nick shared, Interested, in terms of potentially learning to read and write. I did, because it was interesting because my Master's thesis was all about language acquisition and the other way around and trying to learn English from a home language that wasn't English. That's typically how they've been doing it, so when you have Spanish and everything, it's usually trying to bridge it. But, this is trying to do the opposite thing. I was interested in PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 214 figuring out how to do that as a second language, not necessarily language acquisition. Then, how you would do the academic language verses just the thick type of stuff. That was kind of, for me, an interesting thing to see how that this was going to implement it and how to do it. Nick went from being skeptical before the implementation year to being a supporter of the program in his role as the English partner teacher. The DLIP teacher, at the additional site, also shared the significance of having teacher buy-in. In contrast to the Mandarin site, there was a volunteer at the Spanish site to be the English partner teacher. Andrea, the Spanish DLIP teacher shared, She agreed to it, and so we switched. I had her kids, I taught her kids what she was supposed to teach mine and vice versa. In that particular case the kindergarten team embraced me and there were no problems. Everything went really smooth with them. My K partner was actually also bilingual. She's not certified to be a bilingual teacher but she is bilingual. I think she studied in Mexico and she was an exchange student. She has some really good Spanish skills going for her. She understood and she's been for the program since they were told about it as a staff. She's been a big supporter. The other kindergarten teacher, although she doesn't speak Spanish, she's culturally Mexican- American and understands some but doesn't speak very well. She's also very sympathetic with the program and was very helpful and supportive as I started my adventure as a family teacher here. The support and understanding of the program is crucial for the morale of the teachers and the longevity of the DLIP. Erica also commented on the significance of selecting a site, which has teachers who understand the culture of the DLIP language and even a basic understanding of the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 215 language even though they may not be proficient. These factors create a more inviting school culture as the DLIP often begins as a program within the larger school. Erica shared, When we were talking, at the dual-language immersion committees that we had last year, we were talking about what site to choose for our Mandarin program. One of the positives in choosing a site for a program is when you have teachers, even if they're not the DI teachers, teachers who speak the language, because it becomes part of the school culture, if you have more teachers, even if they're not the DI teachers, embracing the program, because they too have the cultural experiences that they can bring. It came up as part of the committee, and one of the reasons why Qiao, the primary reason why Qiao was chosen is because they actually have some Mandarin-speaking staff, and how it can pull in that cultural piece that's part of a DI program, and that it would be a supportive school culture for the program. Selecting a site to host a DLIP with teachers who have knowledge of the target language and its culture helps bring a feeling of campus ownership of the program. Continual reminders of what the DLIP is and why the district is implementing the program would be helpful for the school site and its teaching staff. This is one area the district can put more effort into. Furthermore, the staff morale and school culture need tending to as the DLIP grows throughout the school years. Andrea also shared how beneficial it is to have a supportive staff around her. She said, I'm now in the first grade. I find myself again in a very supportive team. The teacher that I work with takes my kids to keep the integrity of the program, and she agreed to. Again Natasha, she didn't have to, but she did because she's very supportive she's that type of teacher. My partner teacher, Lila, and so grade by grade we're kind of ... we're right now in the beginning stages of the program, We're feeling our way through each grade as we PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 216 move along, and the sentiments of each grade level as we move along, and working with these teachers as we move along. We have four teachers that have been hired already as teachers in waiting for the dual immersion program. We have two teachers that are teaching DI already, so it's Amy who's doing kinder, and then I'm doing first. She is same team, same group of teachers. She also talks about being and feeling very supported in kindergarten. Andrea described the importance of being supported by the English partner teachers and larger staff. She also shared her recollection of how staff was informed of the DLIP and an explanation of why the district would be implementing. Although Andrea, the Spanish DLIP teacher feels communication was sufficient, other participants shared it may not have been enough. Andrea stated, …it was a meeting with the administrators...the administration here at the school site and the administration from the district office. They came and they spoke to the staff. I believe the staff was educated on what dual immersion is, what the research says on dual immersion, their plans for implementation, questions were answered. Again, a lot of people were on board from the get go. A lot of people were convinced and a lot of people weren't and still aren't to this day. Although not all stakeholders understand the program, the program is in its second year of implementation and will continue to grow by a grade level each year at each school. Finally, Andrea shared, Wouldn't it make sense that all these kids be learning in a second language and reaping the benefits of being in a program like this one? I also want to get to the fact that a lot of people embrace it. They know that it works, however not all the staff embraces it. That's PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 217 a shame, but that's also something that with the passion you have to overcome and just go. That's how I work. I do my job, I do it the best way that I know, I put 150% into it, and I just go with it. In order to create a school culture that embraces the DLIP and shares a sense of ownership in its success, the experiences from Arcos USD indicate more effort be made to get teacher buy-in amongst the monolingual staff. From the statements above, it’s clear that while some teachers felt the communication and involvement of educators at all levels in the district was sufficient, others felt that more could be done to bring everyone along. As Calderon and Carreon (2000) asserted, staff development for all staff must include ways of discussing diversity, ethnicity, and the rationale for implementing a DLIP. Further, power relation amongst the monolingual and bilingual teachers should be addressed in the planning and implementation phases. Staff buy-in and the relationships amongst monolingual and bilingual teachers surfaced in the interviews as an area of focus and improvement as the initial implementation years carry on. In addition to continuing to inform staff and gain more staff buy-in with the continuous dissemination of information about the DLIPs, the participants shared they also had their sights set on the future of the program even now in the early stages of implementation. This is another example of the planning overlapping in the implementation stage. Out of necessity for annual class growth in the DLIP, planning is a constant across the time continuum. Despite the small amount of research on secondary DLIP implementation, there are K-12 districts with dual language immersion programs in their secondary schools. Thomas and Collier (2012) conducted a five-year longitudinal program evaluation of Woodburn School District in Woodburn, Oregon, which has had a DLIP in place K-12 for the past 15 years. Despite the dearth of research on secondary implementation, Arcos USD has other K-12 models to seek partnerships with and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 218 continue planning for DLIP expansion into secondary should that become part of their long term plan. Erica shared the discussions and planning for possible secondary implementation. We've actually started planning. I went to a conference last year, and our principals are going to workshops at LACOE this year for secondary, because, oddly enough, we have to start thinking about it now, because we're going to have two programs merging into one middle school, eventually, two programs merging into one high school. What that looks like, it is a much more complicated question at the secondary level. The work has already started for that. We're starting with learning, we're starting with research. We're starting to learn from others that have done it before us and get a handle around secondary, because it'll be here before we know it. The planning for secondary school implementation during the elementary implementation years was not discussed in the literature. However, this element of secondary planning during the elementary implementation years surfaced in my conversations with participants. In addition to longer term planning that is still happening during the implementation year, Teresa shared the DLIP team of district, site, and immersion teachers are also continuing to inform the families of their community about the program. Each year the district holds a DLIP community information evening in the boardroom. I attended this year’s information night and noticed how quickly the seats filled and the walls were lined with curious parents. There were couples in attendance who did not even have school age children yet. Questions regarding the lottery were asked as well as an explanation of why not all 100+ students could enroll in the DLIP. Erica explained the need for a 50:50 student body makeup; 50% native target language speakers and 50% native English speakers. Currently the school district doesn’t have the enrollment of sufficient native speakers of the target languages to match the amount of native English speakers. Teresa shared, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 219 The meeting is the first step. We get a lot of families with babies. One year olds and two year olds. They are thinking way in advance. So now the role is in addition to being supportive of what's currently happening, it's helping with that transition to the next school year, and our teachers wanting to teach a summer school class through our education foundations. So we're supporting them in that endeavor and they wrote up a proposal for what kind of class they want to teach. Our education foundations wants a camp, like a language camp, they're interested in that. You become facilitator between all the different groups, and making sure everybody's responding to one another, and communications happening. In addition to facilitating DLIP information nights, Teresa is also coordinating with the school district’s foundation to plan for summer language camps. She is responding to the desires and needs of the parents of the community. The planning continues through the implementation years. As the discussions continue during the implementation years about the possibility of the DLIP bridging into middle school, Teresa also shared, Just so that they're [secondary principals] aware, and they can start thinking about how that's going to work with ... Okay we have six periods, so how do we do this? Is it going to be an elective? Do we teach it in a class that we already have a teacher who can? Oh, well our current sixth grade math teacher can speak Mandarin, okay, Mandarin's going to be in Math. We really need to make sure that that's something that families are going to want. So I do think a survey is coming up in the near future, before we proceed any further. Surveys have been used in the past by the school district to gather information regarding the planning and implementation of the DLIPs. Teresa refers to the possibility of conducting a parent PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 220 survey in the near future to gauge parents’ interest. Although the planning for the future of the district’s DLIP surfaced in the participants’ responses as a key component of the implementation year, the literature did not discuss this. In summary, the participants believed the two to four years prior planning before implementation year was fundamental for their success during the implementation years, and many of the activities that are mentioned as implementation phase elements were actually considered and in some cases completed during the planning phase. More specifically, the areas of selection of curriculum and assessments, gradual phase in of the programs, visiting and forming partnerships, attending conferences, and marketing the program are components that tend to happen in the implementation year and in actuality were part of the planning years for this particular school district. The participants also shared their successes and lessons learned. The successes were committing to regular monthly meeting to evaluate, plan, and revise the program. District and site leaders were in attendance along with the immersion teachers. All participants mentioned the importance of allocating planning time during both the planning and implementation phase. The allocated time led to a continuous refinement and improvement of the programs at each site. The participants, including the teachers, spoke of their desire to improve awareness and understanding of the immersion program amongst the entire staff. The participants discussed the importance of staff buy-in and campus morale. Finally, the participants shared they are already planning for the possibility of moving into the secondary level during the implementation of the elementary schools. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 221 A Well Implemented DLIP is Cyclical in Nature Based on the data on how the planning phase led into the implementation years, which in turn, contained more planning on the part of the participants for the upcoming implementation years, I found the process to be more cyclical than linear. Although the literature outlined a series of elements to consider, the data revealed many of these elements to be occurring at the same time and were in fact reoccurring. Not only were elements of the planning phase such as re- establishing goals, a continual study of demographics, selecting curriculum and assessments, recruitment and hiring, and identifying needs of families and students, repeated during the implementation year, they will continue to be further developed for the next three to four years as the DLIP expands annually. Each year will bring in a new grade level and with it yet another implementation year. As the current Mandarin DLIP kindergarten students complete the school year, the DLIP team is looking to implementation of first grade. In one year, the DLIP team will be developing the second grade program and so on. The Spanish DLIP will follow the same pattern at Toledo Elementary. These findings matter because, unlike some programs, DLIP implementation is not a one or two-year process, but a much longer commitment. At first glance, the planning and implementation appear to be linear and phases to pass through, however upon closer examination, the data revealed the components are overlapping and all cyclical linking the planning with the implementation. Thus, based on the data, I have redesigned my conceptual framework to reflect the findings. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 222 Figure 4: Conceptual Framework Based on Findings Not only is this conceptual framework descriptive of the planning and implementation phases, as described by the data, but also inspired by Kotter’s 8 Steps to Accelerate Change in 2015. The research Kotter has conducted on organizational change processes is also cyclical in nature and can be applied to the context of DLIP. Ultimately, the goal of a DLIP is to ensure student achievement, so making sure this goal is included in the right side box is important. As the literature review outlined, dual language immersion programs have the potential to raise student achievement for all students, majority language and minority language speakers (Collier & Thomas, 2009). In addition, the other goals of bilingualism, biliteracy, preparation for a global economy and cross-cultural awareness all PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 223 also included in the outcomes box. Each of these was mentioned by participants in some way shape or form. But in order to attain the goals and outcomes dual language immersion program implementers seek, fidelity to key components of a well-implemented DLIP really matters (Thomas & Collier, 2012). Furthermore, developing and sustaining a DLIP requires significant planning, focus, and collaborative work on the part of administrators, teachers, and parents (Thomas & Collier, 2012). However, this work is not made up of discrete tasks, but is rather a complex, interwoven set of practices that are continually refined throughout the planning and implementation phases. Consequently, my conceptual framework needed to reflect these cyclical and repetitive elements of planning and implementing a quality DLIP, which would develop, and take lasting hold over the subsequent school years. The data also revealed action taken by Arcos Unified to ultimately anchor a change process, establishing the change, and making it permanent, which are mirrored in Kotter’s 8 Steps for Organizational Change theory. The following table places the action steps of Arcos Unifed alongside Kotter’s Steps for Leading Change. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 224 Table 9. Action Steps Taken by Arcos Unified Next to Kotter’s 8 Steps for Leading Change Action Taken by Arcos to Lead Change Kotter’s Steps for Leading Change • Identify Strategic Goals of Expanding World Language Opportunities …in Elementary Schools 1. Create Urgency • Form Dual Language Immersion Committee inviting parents and community members, teachers, administrators 2. Build Coalition • Establish DLIP vision bilingual, biliterate, bicultural, globally competent, and overall high achievement 3. Form Vision • Community and Parent meetings, website message, press releases, 4. Communicate Vision • Designate district administrator as lead for DLIP planning and implementation; coordinated with personnel for hiring, and Instructional Services for curriculum • Actively seek partnership from immersion districts 5. Empower Action • District communicated and celebrated hiring of Spanish Founding teacher, site selection, and gradually phased in one language (Spanish) followed by Mandarin in Year II 6. Generate Short Term Wins • Celebrate the ability to have two Mandarin cohorts due to Mandarin speaking student selection, expanded program to a second site • Continue to reach out and strengthen partnerships with other immersion districts 7. Consolidate Gains • DLIP founding teachers serve as team leads on planning for each new grade level material and assessments, each year builds a new layer on the previous year’s foundation 8. Anchor New Approaches Finally, the data revealed details of Arcos Unified’s implementation experience that may be valuable for school districts to refer to. The following table is a snapshot of planning and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 225 implementation elements that the participants shared. It represents the activities districts must engage in during planning and implementation, as well as those that would be nice to do. Table 10. Planning and Implementation ‘Must Dos’ and ‘Nice To Dos’ Must Do Nice To Do Determine program structure and model Ensure DLIP English teacher has some knowledge of target language Define DLIP specific hiring contracts Plan forPaid Summer Planning Time for DLIP Teachers Account for18-24 month planning period FacilitateDLIP Informational Sessions for Staff Outline and publish student selection system Plan for whole school foreign language access Recruit founding teacher Plan forDLIP Summer School Opportunities Keep end Goal in Mind – Elementary or Secondary Provide DLIP teacher networking time with other districts Under the ‘Nice To Do’ side you will see Whole School Foreign Language Access. This was not discussed in the literature but was brought up by the leadership team at Qiao Elementary School. The principal and assistant principal shared the elementary leadership team was looking at ways to provide access for all students and families interested in foreign language learning. As this chapter shows, not all families who want a DLIP, are able to get into a DLIP. As space is limited and students’ ability to enroll in the Spanish or Mandarin DLIP is based on a lottery, many parents have asked about additional foreign language opportunities. Thus, online foreign language programs for students are being researched currently. Additionally, the Qiao Elementary leadership team also discussed DLIP Summer School Opportunities. Again, parents are interested in foreign language opportunities outside the school year and the district’s educational foundation is researching the possibility of offering language camps during the summer months. The other items in the table were discussed in this chapter. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 226 Conclusion The participants in my study described the reasons and processes they went through to plan for and implement a dual language Spanish immersion program followed by a dual language Mandarin immersion program the following school year. Now that Arcos Unified has almost two years and four cohorts of students as experience, they were also able to reflect on the nature of their first year of implementation. The participants’ personal stories and their own relationship to foreign language learning surfaced and revealed how language should be viewed as an asset by key program planners. The data also showed the process of learning another language taught the participants empathy and they carried this into their work as educators. The connection between the participants’ language background and their current roles in the DLIP planning and implementation process could not be ignored. In addition to the participants’ language background and the logistical pieces of planning, the participants also described how the parents and community members were able to use their influence and social capital to help bring about the development of Arcos Unified’s DLIPs. In conjunction with the school board’s goal of expanding world language opportunities for the elementary students, the district’s stakeholders were able to work as a DLIP committee and bring about two dual language immersion programs. Understanding the context and demographics of Arcos, it is important to note that the Spanish and Mandarin DLIPs were developed as enrichment programs. The findings of this study also revealed a more nuanced examination of planning and implementation elements for a district to consider. Contrary to the research outlining the planning and implementation phases as linear checkpoints to move through, the participants described more of a cyclical revisiting of elements, many of which overlap the planning and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 227 implementation phases. Finally, context matters, and the experiences of Arcos’ planning and implementation of DLIPs may be unique to its setting. However, my objective in sharing these findings is to provide a descriptive story, coupled with analysis, of a K-12 unified school district’s journey through the planning and implementation of a Spanish and Mandarin dual language immersion program. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 228 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION This qualitative study sought to understand the reasons why a K-12 school district decided to implement a dual language immersion program. Moreover, the study examined the planning process the school district went through prior to its implementation year, and also explored the nature of the first two years of implementation. I began this study with a conceptual framework built from elements of planning and implementation of a DLIP uncovered by the research presented in the literature review. Besides collecting elements on the planning and implementation of a DLIP, the conceptual framework was anchored by change process and leadership theories. By including the goals as well as the populations service, the conceptual framework also attempted to illustrated that all students benefit from the goals and outcomes of a DLIP, regardless of a student’s native language. Although my study focused on the planning, implementation, and nature of the first years of implementation, it is important to note the context of the study mattered. The school district, its stakeholders, and the background of the participants all played a role in the story of planning and implementing a DLIP in this K-12 school district. In order to answer my two research questions, I used a qualitative study approach. I asked participants to recount how and for what reasons their K-12 school district decided to plan for and implement a DLIP. I was also interested in the participants’ recollection of what the first two years of implementation looked like. Although the literature presented the planning and implementation of a DLIP as a linear process, the data revealed that planning and implementation are more of a cyclical process in which elements are not completed once and then not revisited. Planning elements also overlapped into the implementation years. In this PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 229 chapter, I will summarize the key findings and then provide a discussion on the implications for practice and further research. Summary of Findings DLIP Planner Background and Characteristics The first key finding related to the background of the planners and initial implementers of DLIPs in Arcos. The data revealed two themes related to the language acquisition background of the participants: 1) each participant saw languages as assets and 2) past experiences and challenges with language learning developed empathy in key DLIP planners. DLIP planners saw languages as assets. The participants in my study all had experience with second language learning as either an immigrant learning English, a first generation public school attender in the U.S. whose English learning began in school, or as a native English speaker learning another language through classes or an immersion setting. Participants who immigrated to the U.S. described their own second language learning in a subtractive way, because there was pressure to acquire English – either from the schools or from their parents – while their native language was not further developed, or in some cases, lost altogether. Many English language learners experience subtractive models in school by acquiring English while losing their native language (Thomas and Collier, 2012). These experiences were not positive ones and they learned that it is important to value language acquisition. Native English speaker participants, too, realized the value of language acquisition, but in quite different ways. Family members played a key role in encouraging other language acquisition. In all cases, languages were seen as an asset, even though participants arrived at this realization in quite different ways DLIP planners were empathic, having experienced challenges of language acquisition. The second theme emerged when the participants further reflected on how their own PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 230 grappling with a second language positioned them to understand and empathize what their students are experiencing. Not only did their own experiences help them understand what DLIP students will experience, it aided with the explanation to parents and stakeholders about how language acquisition works simultaneously in two languages. Seven out of ten participants came from a household in which another language, other than English was spoken. All participants had experience learning a second language. Their own experiences and values regarding second language learning provided me with insight as to their motivation to plan and implement a DLIP successfully for their school district. District Context Matters The context of the school district also surfaced as a factor in how the decision was made to move forward with DLIP implementation. Despite the district’s relatively small total student enrollment of around 5,000 and its roughly 7% English language learner population, a Spanish DLIP and Mandarin DLIP were implemented. Community and parent desire for the development of a DLIP was actively voiced about three years prior to the board directive to implement the DLIPs. This is contrary to what the literature described as the impetus for DLIP development. The majority of research on the development of DLIPs came from school district offices, which sought out support for the program (Sugarman, J. & Howard, E.R., 2001; Calderon, M. & Carreon, A., 2000; Montague, N.S., 1997). Although the district had identified the expansion of world language opportunities as a strategic goal to be worked on, the participants described the outpouring of support for the development of a DLIP as one of the main reasons the planning started when it did. Parents in the community were aware of neighboring school districts’ recently implemented DLIPs and wanted their children to have the same program options. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 231 In addition to the community and parent support for the DLIPs, the data revealed the district was positioned to take on the development of the program. The district was in a good place, having successfully implemented other programs that they had planned on. They were not struggling with enrollment, and as an affluent district, had less challenges related to district performance. Additionally, there was staff who was interested and willing to move forward with the planning. For example, one elementary school principal was actively interested in implementing a DLIP at her school site. All of these factors combined, coupled with the parent support, speak to the schools district’s readiness to develop a DLIP. Rationale for Developing a Dual Language Immersion Program Through the analysis of the data, I concluded there were several reasons behind the decision to plan for a DLIP. First, although the research describes the additive benefits for all students to learn in a dual immersion setting alongside peers with a different native language (Thomas & Collier, 2002, Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010), the data indicated there are key stakeholders who must be in agreement with this for new programming to be approved. Dual language programs are considered enrichment and benefit all students (Christian, 1996; Thomas & Collier, 1997). Key DLIP planners in the district described the value of learning a second language. What was critical in this district was to get the support of the board. The participants described the school board’s directive as the reason they all began work on developing the Spanish and Mandarin DLIPs for their school district. Without the school board’s recognition that DLIPs have the benefits listed in the literature, the DLIPs would not have been implemented. Despite the potential challenges of developing a DLIP in a small district, the participants felt the value of the program far outweighed any feasibility issues, and the board’s and superintendent’s support of the program was what ultimately enabled them to plan for it. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 232 Second, while the school board and superintendent had already established several strategic goals for the school district including expanding world language options for students to promote global readiness, there had to be agreement that a more robust program that started early needed to be in place. The participants in this case study described the facility and ease of learning a second language at a young age and the benefits of acquiring academic proficiency in while growing up through the school system. In summary, the rationale for developing and planning a DLIP came from the school board’s directive, which aligned with the district’s strategic goals supported by the superintendent, and was also supported by stakeholders in the school community including parents. The school board, district leadership team, community members, and parents understood the enrichment and value of a dual language immersion program. Planning Elements Are Not Just Planning Elements Although I was able to identify the key planning components stated in the literature review in my data, I also discovered planning phase details not deeply discussed in the research in Chapter Two. I focused my findings section on those planning elements that were both most commonly cited and extended the discussions in the literature. Establishing goals, program design and instructional practice was found to be both district and role specific. Even though the DLIP has goals, which come from the research and include being bilingual, biliteral, and bicultural, the participants spoke of DLIP goals in their particular school district as the way they planned. Different stakeholders had to consider different end goals. For example, district and site leaders had to consider the possibility of growing the program into its secondary schools. District leaders also had to attend to the questions of program growth by considering the school district’s demographics to support DLIP PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 233 expansion into the secondary schools. Teachers, on the other hand, spoke of their continuous efforts to improve, create, and refine their instructional practices. In both cases, though, administrators and teachers discussed the process of establishing goals, program design, and instructional practice as not only an element of the planning phase, but as an ongoing source of conversation as the DLIP continues to grow by a grade level at each site each school year. Studying area demographics and identifying the needs of parents was another topic the participants spoke of as not simply a planning component, as the literature suggested, but an ongoing analysis to ensure program fidelity and parent support. As the literature discussed, districts implement DLIPs to serve both English language learners and native English speakers with the end goals of producing bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural students. Thus, it follows the classrooms be made up of 50% native English speaking students and 50% native target language students. In order to ensure the appropriate classroom makeup, the school district needs to be able to draw from a steady kindergarten enrollment of native English speakers and native target language speakers. This delimitation of a DLIP will require a regular review of the school district’s specific demographics. In Arcos, the main challenge was finding families whose native language was either Spanish or Mandarin who would be interested in enrolling in their DLIPs. Given the district’s specific context as an affluent community, finding native English speakers interested in enrichment for their children was not a challenge. The need to find the right number of students in each language category for the DLIP was not considered to be just a planning component as reflected in the literature. The review of demographics is one that will continue on, into the implementation years as new grade levels are added and the program needs to be sustained. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 234 An additional planning phase element that was seen by participants as one that needs to be considered in an ongoing way was the selection of curriculum and assessments. The participants spoke at length and in great detail about the time spent on the part of the DLIP teachers to not only select curriculum and assessment materials but to create them in their target language. Administrators and teachers spoke of paid time in the summer months and time spent outside the expected school day work hours to prepare curriculum and assessments in the target language because those don’t exist. Again, the selection of curriculum and assessments is not only considered and discussed in the planning phase, but as the data revealed, is an ongoing effort into the implementation years. While it is ideal to begin planning for the curriculum and the assessments prior to the first year of implementation, the reality is that many of the DLIP teachers were adapting and implementing even after the program got off the ground. Finally, as this case study has indicated, the recruitment and hiring of DLIP personnel is of utmost importance to the success and longevity of the program, and this element too, needs to be continually revisited. The data revealed the details and care the district personnel took in recruiting teachers with experience and who would be the face of the DLIP. Teachers were concerned about being displaced as a result of the new DLIP, because the district began instituting hiring strategies that looked forward to the years when the DLIP grade levels would move into the upper grades. For example, the phrase ‘teacher in waiting’ was brought up in discussions and showed that recruiting and hiring personnel for the DLIP was pre-planned and strategic. The data also described specific contract language that was used for DLIP teachers to ensure they would stay within the program from year to year. In an effort to quell the worries of the certificated teaching staff about displacement, the personnel department explained the plan of hiring only BCLAD teachers to fill the future opening for the DLIP cohorts. Thus, the term PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 235 ‘teachers in waiting’ described a BCLAD teacher in a monolingual classroom until the DLIP cohort needed the BCLAD teacher. In sum, the data revealed that planning components, particularly the three described above, are not only reviewed and analyzed in the beginning phases of a DLIP, but rather are ongoing and even cyclical considerations as the program grows annually. Implementation is Only as Good as the Planning As the data revealed, the implementation components I expected to see in the implementation phase were actually addressed in large part in the planning phase. According to the data, none of the implementation components from the research, selection of curriculum and assessments, a gradual phase in of the program, an effort on the part of the school district to visit and form partnerships with other DLIP districts, the attendance of conferences, and DLIP marketing, were discrete, check off items that were handled once the program opened its doors. The components listed above were addressed in the planning phase as well as the implementation years. Until the first cohort of Spanish and Mandarin DLIP students promote from elementary school, each new grade level cohort is an implementation year as new curriculum and new teachers will begin the grade level program. Thus, implementation was seen as a six-year process. The literature did not detail this lengthy implementation process and the continuous efforts on the part of the DLIP personnel to analyze curriculum, continue to form partnerships, attend conferences, and market the program. This last component, to market the program, is especially vital in light of the small English language learner population in this district. They had to work hard to recruit native target language speakers. So while it’s important to market the program before the first grade is fully enrolled and started, recruiting for appropriate DLIP student enrollment will be a continuous effort and challenge. This challenge is specific to the PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 236 district context, because while Arcos had less concern with finding native English speakers, other districts may fact the opposite challenge. Despite the overlap of planning and implementation year components, the data revealed four topics I’ve categorized as successes and lessons learned during the implementation years. The first is the significance of scheduled monthly dual immersion meetings open to all, but especially for the DLIP teachers, principals, and assistant superintendent of instructional services. The participants shared these meetings were crucial and continue to be helpful to discuss any areas of concern around the continuous development of the program. Along with the DLIP meetings comes the understanding that the following years will be in a flux of constant refinement. The participants spoke to the importance of acknowledging this fact. One participant shared many non DLIP teachers wanted to understand the details of what the program would look like in fifth grade or even middle school. The participant’s response was she didn’t have a clear answer and the program would be developed year by year as the students moved up the grade levels. This is an honest answer that some stakeholders struggled with as they are concerned about how the DLIP could possibly affect classroom space and teaching positions. With these concerns raised, the participants reflected on the importance of the information provided prior to and during implementation. Although the participants felt they had thoroughly informed the teaching staff at the elementary schools about why the DLIP was being implemented and that there would be no displacement in the near future, they acknowledged they could have done a more thorough job of informing the larger teaching staff of what the DLIP would look like in the near future. As the district looks to possibly expanding into secondary schools, the participants linked the idea of implementation to the future of the program. This PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 237 further demonstrates implementation will be an annual reoccurrence as each year a grade level is added. In summary, the findings revealed planning and implementation were not discrete events but overlapped. The components within each phase were also cyclical, not one time events. This overarching finding speaks to the importance of having a dedicated team of program planners who value language acquisition and can understand the challenges associated with it. This is hard and continuous work, and districts need dedicated staff to see it through. Districts can also benefit from community and parent desires for the program, which facilitates the board’s and superintendent’s decision to move forward when and if the district is ready. The time and resource intensive cyclical process of planning and implementing a DLIP were ultimately seen as well worth it by the participants in this study. The benefits to students drove much of the work they did, even as they overcame challenges related to staff and community concerns about displacement, enrollment unknowns and staff capacity. Implications for Practice In this study I set out to understand the reasons why a K-12 school district would decide to plan for and implement a dual language immersion program. Additionally, I was interested in getting a picture of what the first years of implementation looked like. The research states DLIPs provide an enrichment opportunity for all students. Specifically, DLIPs provide a cross-cultural classroom environment for students learning English as well as for native English speaking students learning a second language (Bearse & de Jong, 2008). Thus, both groups of students are acquiring a second language. Dual language immersion programs are an additive, enrichment type of bilingual education. However, not all bilingual programs have yielded the same high PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 238 achievement scores for English language learners as dual language immersion programs. According to the Center for Applied Linguistics, 20 percent of the U.S. population speak a language other than English at home. English learners represent ten percent of the K-12 students population in the United States (Ruiz Soto, Hooker, and Batalova, 2015). California has the highest concentration of English language learners with a population of 23 percent of its K-12 students (Ruiz Soto, Hooker, and Batalova, 2015). Educators, and specifically school districts, continue to seek effective ways of providing instruction for English language learners enabling them to keep pace with native English speakers in the classroom and beyond high school into the workforce. As the English language learner population continues to grow in California and across the nation, school districts can capitalize on the native language of English learner students by providing an additive language classroom environment for all students. While this case study highlighted an affluent district with low ELL population, districts with higher EL populations can learn from their experiences to try to replicate DLIPs in their districts. Native English speaking families are also seeking enrichment programs for their students. The data from my study indicated parents are seeking dual language immersion programs based on the results they are seeing in neighboring school districts. Howard and Christian (2002) attribute the rise in popularity to research demonstrating the DLIP effectiveness and high academic achievement of both native English speakers and minority language speakers. According to the ongoing collection of dual immersion school information, the Center for Applied Linguistics Dual Language Program Directory states there are 448 schools in 37 states and the District of Columbia in which all or part of their curriculum is taught through a second language. Amongst this group of dual language schools, there are 22 foreign languages represented. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 239 Noteworthy and unique to Arcos Unified is its English learner population of about seven percent. One of the feasibility concerns that surfaced in the data was how the district would be able to maintain a steady enrollment of kindergarten native Spanish and native Mandarin speakers to annually implement their DLIPs with fidelity and a classroom makeup of 50% native minority language speakers and 50% native English speakers. The data also revealed the wait list in this district for native English speaking kindergartners trying to enroll in a kindergarten DLIP, either Spanish or Mandarin, was over one hundred. However, due to physical space issues, the lack of native Spanish and Mandarin speakers, and the lack of BCLAD Spanish and Mandarin teachers, the district is not able to accommodate all of the families. Ultimately, English speaking families and minority language families need each other in order for their children to learn side by side in a dual language immersion program and grow together to become high achieving bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural citizens. Along with the idea of learning side by side and mutual dependence of students of different native languages in order to build a DLIP classroom, I must mention the political boundaries I learned about in my research of the area. The school district of this case study borders a community made up of Spanish speaking Latinos. In my research I learned of physical barriers which were constructed in the 1970s to delineate the political boundaries of the two cities. The physical divide exists today and does not allow for drive thru traffic. Pedestrian passage is permissible despite the prohibitive feel the wall emits. The street name also changes from one city, across the wall, to the next city. One side of the wall has trees, flowers, and green foliage. The other side has tall, yellow, dry grass. In light of the enrollment challenges of finding and recruiting Spanish speakers revealed in the data, I cannot help but wonder about the physical wall between the communities and the psychological barriers that persist between the two PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 240 communities. The irony of the wall and the mutual dependence on native language capital of these two communities cannot be ignored. It’s ironic that a community that has existed behind a physical barrier, separated from the less affluent, less English speaking, “less than” neighboring community is now in need of that community to run a viable DLIP. Again, the context of the communities matter in considering how to plan, implement, and grow a dual language immersion program. And while an in-depth discussion of the political and economic arguments for diverse communities is beyond the scope of this dissertation, I would be remiss not to acknowledge it as an argument in need of being had. Ultimately, the findings in this study have implications for districts to consider with smaller English language learner populations and large numbers of native English speaking families seeking a dual language immersion program. Districts will need to devise a plan to support the dual language immersion program as far as student selection, teacher recruitment, and classroom space allocations. Given that a DLIP classroom is ideally made up of 50% minority language and 50% native English speaking students, requiring properly credentialed BCLAD teachers along with a partner English teacher, and curriculum and assessments in two languages has implications for the planning and implementation of the program. The data revealed this particular school district began researching the feasibility of DLIP implementation about two and a half years before the school board directive to implement. The participants spoke to the benefits of having this planning time to determine how a DLIP would look in their school district. Decisions around site location and space, personnel, curriculum, student selection, hiring and attrition, stakeholder buy in, gradual phase in of two programs over two years, and communication were all addressed by the DLIP team and district leadership team. Although this process appeared linear according to the literature review, the process proved cyclical. The participants shared their pride in carrying PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 241 out the charge and the data revealed a well-crafted plan for each component. These findings have implications for how much planning time is necessary for a district looking to implement a dual language immersion program. Careful analysis of demographics and staffing unique to each school district will require consideration. Additionally, the findings suggest allocated personnel are necessary during the planning phase at least 18 months in advance of implementation year. Finally, districts can’t forget a dual language immersion program usually begins as a strand in one to two classrooms within the larger kindergarten group of classrooms. The implications are the program will be operating within an English-dominant school setting which may present challenges for ensuring equal status to the minority language. Recommendations K-12 School Districts Dual language immersion programs are implemented in an effort to bridge the linguistic divide, close the achievement gap between native English speakers and minority language speakers, and produce high achieving, bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural, globally competent citizens. In light of the recent passage of California’s Proposition 58 – the Lara Bill, supporting multilingual education and repealing various provisions of Proposition 227, the road is wide open to expand dual language immersion programs without parent waivers. Proposition 58 allows schools to teach English through the student’s native language. According to Thomas and Collier (2012), English learners master more of the curriculum, academically and linguistically, in a dual language immersion program receiving instruction in their native language as well as English, than English language learners in English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. With more than three decades of research on the high achievement of multilingual students and policy now in place to have multilingual schools and classrooms, dual language immersion programs PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 242 are a means to providing a rigorous and high quality education for all students. K-12 school districts should begin seriously considering DLIPs as an option. While there are many challenges to doing so, the benefits far outweigh those challenges. Partnerships Between K-12 Schools and Bilingual Credentialing Programs With the demand for dual language immersion programs on the rise, also comes the rise in demand for properly credentialed bilingual teachers. School districts and credentialing programs will need to work closely together in order for university or alternate credentialing programs to produce the type of specialized bilingual teachers needed to work in DLIPs. Patricia Gandara of UCLA recently stated in an essay by Conor P. Williams in the LA School report on February 29, 2016, “The annual credentialing of bilingual teachers in California has fallen to one-third of what it was a decade ago.” The data revealed the difficulty the district of this case study had in finding the appropriate Spanish and Mandarin BCLAD founding teachers. Williams (2016), the author of the same essay, wrote “multilingual policy will be toothless without bilingual teachers to carry out the charge of producing bilingual, biliterate, bicultural, high achieving students ready for a global workforce, right here in California.” There are no multilingual programs in schools without the appropriate teachers. The demand for dual language immersion programs is having a fast moving domino effect on the demand for teachers. As such, partnerships between school districts and bilingual credentialing organizations need to be developed to fill the needs of tomorrow. Future Research This study set out to understand the reasons why a K-12 school district decided to implement a dual language immersion program and then explore its planning process and the nature of its implementation years. While interviews were used to ask key planners and PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 243 implemenators about their recollections of the recent past, furture research could explore this process more directly by using observational data. A longitudinal study that enabled the researcher to sit in on planning meetings and then watch the implementation phase roll out would be informative. A limitation of this study is the data collection occurred after the planning phase and during the second year of implementation. Three of the seven participants were not a part of the planning phase but joined the district during the implementation phase. Additionally, due to time constraints, I was not abe to interview more parents, teachers, and board members. A final limitation is I was unable to interview members of the teacher’s union who were not part of the dual language immersion program. Union members who were not part of the DLIP may have had a different perspective. Future researchers may find these perspectives illuminating to allow more understanding of the ultimate decision to implement a dual language immersion program and the challenges faced along the way. Another possible area of research that came up during the data collection is the relationship between bilingual credentialing programs and the school districts seeking out bilingual teachers. The data revealed a network of bilingual teachers who have experience in DLIPs and who are looking to work in the most desirous school districts. However, the demand for bilingual teachers far exceeds those who are currently in bilingual teaching positions. As DLIPs expand so too does the demand for teachers. How are school districts communicating this need to credentialing programs and how are credentialing programs seeking input on the languages desired and the type of teaching candidate needed? In addition to the credentialing of BCLAD teachers, researchers could explore how university credentialing programs are preparing BCLAD teachers. What kinds of courses are BCLAD teachers taking to prepare them for the demanding job of leading dual language immersion classrooms? Researchers could look for how PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 244 this communication between school districts and universities happens, if at all. Additionally researchers could examine and evaluate BCLAD credentialing courses currently in place. This also leads in to the area of New Teacher Induction Programs at K-12 districts. How are newly credentialed BCLAD teachers being supported as they clear their credential in their new teaching positions? An additional area of study would be who within school districts is leading and managing the DLIPs? The data revealed there are many components to care for and grow. How do school districts keep up with the ever-growing program? Future research could explore how the DLIP personnel evolve into a larger unit, if at all. The findings in this study revealed that different planners had different roles and perspectives. It would be interesting to see how teams are built with this finding in mind, and how they together work to sustain DLIPs. Finally, districts like the one in this case study may eventually need to find an alternate source of Spanish speakers and Mandarin speakers for kindergarten enrollment other than its own district. Researchers may explore how districts communicate the need to allow students from outside its boundaries into its DLIP in order to ensure the growth and classroom makeup to ultimately serve the children and families living within the district boundaries who are asking for the program. Conclusion This study sought to understand why a K-12 school district would take on the task of implementing a dual language immersion program and then, once the decision was made, how the planning process evolved into the nature of the first year of implementation. The study focused on ten different district stakeholders who were involved in the decision-making, the planning, the implementation, or all three in one specific school district. The descriptive nature PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 245 of this study attempted to detail how the components discussed in the literature base actually unfolded. Dual language immersion programs are important to understand in in-depth ways because their objective is a noble one: to value language acquisition while serving all students, native minority language students and native English speaking students. It is an additive program serving as enrichment for both groups and growing both languages. And while in this district, the focus was on the enrichment opportunities afforded to native English speakers in the community and less so as a means to close the achievement gap for struggling English learners, the implementation of dual language immersion programs hold great potential. It not only produces bilingual and biliterate students, but students who are bicultural, and in tune with one another as they learn and grow alongside peers who are from a different background than their own. Even in contexts where this may not be the primary reason for planning and implementing a DLIP, it is with these programs that we educators begin to close achievement gaps and reach equitable outcomes for all students. As the data suggests, interest in DLIPs will continue to grow. Thus, it is incumbent upon us as educators not to lose sight of the importance of serving all students by being ready and willing to take on the challenges necessary to implement DLIPs. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 246 References Bearse, C. & De Jong, E.J. (2008). Cultural and linguistic investment: Adolescents in a secondary two-way immersion program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(3), 325-340 Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and method. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Calderon, M. & Carreon, A. (2000). a two-way bilingual program: promise, practice, and precautions. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Baltimore, MD The CARLA. The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition website. The CARLA website at the University of Minnesota, 2016. Web. June 15, 2016 Chiang, R.A. (1994). Recognizing strengths and needs of all bilingual learners: a bilingual/multicultural perspective. NABE News 17, 4:11, 22-23. Christian, D. (1996). Two-Way Immersion Education: Students Learning through Two Languages. Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66-76 Collier, V.P. & Thomas, W.P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-20. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2006). Basics of Qualitative Research, Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles, CA Sage Publications, Inc. Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice, Trenton, NJ:Crane. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York: Albert PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 247 Elmore, R.F. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement. Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, June, 2006 - International Conference: International perspectives on School Leaderhsip for Systemic Improvement Freeman, Rebecca. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters LTD. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and Sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. Leadership Across the System, Winter 2004 (article from Leadership class – need proper citation) Fullan, M. (2014). The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass Garcia, A. “What the rising popularity in dual language programs could mean for dual language learners.” www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/duallanguageexpansion/, January 16, 2015. Genesee, F., & Gandara, P. (1999). Bilingual education programs: A cross-national perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 665-85 Gerena, L. (2011). Parental Voice and Involvement in Cultural Context: Understanding Rationales, Values, and Motivational Constructs in a Dual Immersion Setting. Urban Education, 46(3), 342-370 Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Glesne, C. (2011). In becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4 th edition). Boston: Pearson PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 248 Gomez, L., Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2005). Dual language education: A promising 50-50 model. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 145-164. Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Harris, E.A., (2015) Dual Language Programs are on the rise, even for native English speakers. New York Times Howard, E.R., Olague, N., Rogers, D. (2003). The Dual Language Program Planner: A Guide for Designing and Implementing Dual Language Programs. Center for research on education, Diversity and excellence, Santa Cruz, Howard, E. & Christian, D. (2002). Two-Way immersion 101: designing and implementing a two-way immersion education program at the elementary level. Educational Practice Reports, January 2002 Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press Kotter, J. P. (2014). 8 steps to accelerate change in 2015. eBook: Harvard Business Review Press Lichtman, M. (2014). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Lindholm-Leary, K. (2005). Review of research and best practices on effective features of dual language education programs. Guiding Principles of Dual Language Education. (Funded by the Center for Applied Linguistics and the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition at The George Washington University). Lindholm-Leary, K. & Block, N. (2010). Achievement in predominately low SES/Hispanic dual language schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1), 43-60. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 249 Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2005). Hispanic high-schoolers and mathematics: Follow-up of students who had participated in two-way bilingual elementary programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 29 641-652 Lindholm-Leary, K., & Genesee, F. (2010). Alternative educational programs for English language learners. In California Department of Education (Ed.), Research on English language learners (323-367). Sacramento: Capifornia Department of Education Press. Linton, A. (2004). Learning in two languages: Spanish-English immersion in U.S. public schools. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24(7/8), 46-75. Marzano, R., McNulty, B. and Waters, T. (2005) School Leadership That Works Lindholm-Leary, K. (2012) Success and Challenges in Dual Language Education, Theory Into Practice, 51:256-262 The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, Corey. (2015, June). New York expanding dual language to help its English language learners. Education Week, 34(34). Retreived from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/06/10/in-strategy-to-help-english-learners-new- york.html Miles, Huberrman, & Saldaña. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A methods sourcebook (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 250 Montague, N.S. (1997). Critical components for dual language programs. Bilingual Research Journal; Fall, 1997, 21(4), 408-439 Padilla, A.M., Fan, L. Xu, X. & Silva, D. (2013). A Mandarin/English two-way immersion program: Language proficiency and academic achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 661-679 Pena, Griselda. (2002). Bilingual Education: The problem of ambiguity and poor professional development. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) Romero-Johnson, S. (2011). A case study on the challenges and opportunities for school leaders implementing a dual language immersion strand program. Dissertation, Edgewood College Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990) Shanker Institute. Web. June 15, 2016 Slater, B. “Why Dual Language Immersion Approach Will Change Achievement in American Public Schools.” American Councils, Web. May 4, 2016 The Huffington Post Eleanor Yang Su 3/22/12 Sugarman, J. & Howard, E. R. (2001). Development and Maintenance of Two-Way Immersion Programs: Advice from Practitioners. Practitioner Briefs, March, 2001 Thomas, W.P. and V.P. Collier. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washinton, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Valdez, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391-429. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 251 Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., and Donato, R.: Segregation, desegregation, and integration of Chicano students: old and new realities Williams, Conor P. (2016). The CAL Center for applied linguistics website, essay in the LA school report on February 29, 2016 Yang Su, E. “Dual Language Programs Growing in Popularity Across California.” The Huffington Post, Web. March 18, 2013. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 252 Appendix A Interview Protocol Leadership Positions Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study about the implementation of dual language immersion programs. Primarily, I am interested in why your district decided to implement a DLIP. In addition, I’d like to understand what the first year of implementation was like. Before we get started, I’d like to tell you a little bit about myself. I currently work for Temple City Unified School District as an elementary school administrator. Although, my title is Curriculum Coordinator, I work at a TK-6 school alongside the principal. I have also taught in San Diego City Schools as a bilingual teacher and hold a BCLAD and single subject Spanish credential. My husband, sons, and I speak Spanish and English in our home. Although I value bilingualism, I understand there are different reasons districts decide to implement DLIPs. I’m interested in learning about all angles and reasons why a district decides to plan for and implement a DLIP. I appreciate the time you have set aside to answers some of my questions. The interview should take about an hour and a half, does that work for you? I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. Only I will have access to the recording. I would like to remind you that I will be audio recording our interview today to accurately capture your responses. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to, and you can withdraw your participation at any time. Your identity will be kept confidential and I will use a pseudonym when I include your response in my final paper. I am happy to provide you a copy of the transcription to ensure I am holding true to your voice as well as a copy of the final study if you are interested. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 253 I want to assure you I am strictly wearing the hat of a researcher today. What this means is that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on how you are performing in your role here in the school district. I am really interested in learning from you and the process you went through as you planned and implemented the Dual Language Immersion Program. I would like to hear the perspectives of the district leadership team, site principals, teachers, board members, and parents. I would also like to capture the nature of the first year of implementation. Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? If you don’t have any more questions I would like to have your permission to begin the interview. RESEARCH QUESTION #1: How and for what reasons did a K-12 district plan for a dual language immersion program (DLIP)? I would like to ask you a few questions regarding your educational background in order to understand how they have influenced your current educational experiences. I. Educational Background 1. Would you please tell me about your background in education? PROBE: What roles have you held? How long have you held these positions? 2. How did you first get started working in a DLIP? PROBE: What interested you in leading in a dual language immersion program, if anything? How were you recruited to work on the planning of this program? 3. Tell me about your own experiences learning another language. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 254 4. What are your thoughts on students learning another language as part of their K-6 education? PROBE: How would you respond to someone who said elementary students are too young for foreign language learning? Thank you for sharing your educational background with me. Now I’d like to ask you about the reasons why your district decided to implement a DLIP. I. Reasons for DLIP Implementation 1. How would you describe your role in deciding to implement the DLIP in your district? 2. Could you walk me through the reasons why your district decided to implement a DLIP? PROBE: How did the idea of a DLIP come about? 2. Give me an example of a conversation you had describing why your district was going to move forward with DLIP implementation. 3. What kinds of items were discussed? 4. What rationales were laid out? 5. What was the role of district office staff in decision-making? 6. How were others outside of the district involved in the decision-making meetings, if at all? 7. What is the vision of the school district generally speaking? (Kotter 3) 8. How does the implementation of a DLIP connect to the vision or goals of the district, if at all? 9. How would you describe the goals of a DLIP? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 255 PROBE: How did you learn about the goals you just described? 10. What role did these goals of a DLIP play in the district’s decision to implement a DLIP, if any? 11. What were other reasons why the district decided to implement a DLIP, if any? PROBE: Have there been any demographic changes in the district’s recent history, which would add to the rationale of DLIP implementation? PROBE: How did fiscal considerations factor into a decision to implement DLIPs? PROBE: How did pressures from the community factor into a decision to implement DLIPs? (Kotter 2) 12. Describe the sense of urgency to move forward with a DLIP at one school site, if there was one? How did the district communicate this sense of urgency to start the program? (Kotter 1) PROBE: How about a sense of urgency to grow the program, and add a different language to a different school? 13. How did you develop a vision for this DLIP program? (Kotter 3) 14. How did you develop a strategy for this DLIP program? PROBE: How do you feel about the participation of different stakeholders during this process, if there was participation? (Kotter 2) Before we transition into the next round of questions, I was wondering if you would like to add anything about why the decision to implement a DLIP was made. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 256 Now I’d like to ask you about the planning phase. I. Planning 1. Walk me through one of the initial conversations about starting a DLIP here in this district. PROBE: Where did the conversation go after this? 2. How did the conversations move from discussions to a real possibility of planning for the program? PROBE: What is your recollection of the time between conversations to the actual planning phase? 3. How were goals of a DLIP used to plan for the program design, if at all? PROBE: What kinds of goals were discussed? How was program design discussed as part of the goals, if at all? 4. Would you describe how you communicated about the DLIP (to others in the district, school sites, community members)? (Kotter 4) PROBE: What kinds of details or messages were communicated out? PROBE: What modes of communication did you use? PROBE: How would you describe the effectiveness of the communication of the new DLIP? 5. How were the needs of the community discussed during the planning phase? 6. How were others outside of the district involved in the decision-making meetings, if at all? (Kotter 2) PROBE: How did you go about, if at all, identifying potential supporters of the program? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 257 PROBE: What kinds of stakeholders did you seek out, if any? PROBE: What kind of plan was there to build a group of initial adopters, if there was a plan? 7. How were site leaders chosen? (Kotter 1) 8. How were students selected? (Kotter 1) PROBE: How did students’ needs fit into this conversation, if at all? PROBE: How did special education students fit into the plan for a DLIP, if at all? 9. Describe how the demographics of the school district played into the planning of the DLIP, if at all. 10. At what point of the planning process did the discussion of hiring bilingual teachers begin? (Kotter 5) PROBE: What kind of need for bilingual teachers was there? Or was there? 11. How did the recruitment of bilingual teachers happen? PROBE: Describe the hiring practices of non-DLIP teachers? How was the hiring process for bilingual teachers? 12. How did the district go about familiarizing staff about DLIPs, if at all? (Kotter 5) PROBE: how was research on DLIPs shared with staff? PROBE: How about sharing research with families? Administrators? 13. Describe how the district planned for bilingual curriculum? PROBE: Who was involved in this planning? PROBE: How did you decide on a curriculum and materials to be used? PROBE: How did assessments fit into this conversation? PROBE: Describe how report cards fit into this? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 258 14. What kinds of barriers, if any, did your district encounter while trying to plan for the DLIP? (Kotter 5) PROBE: How did your district remove these barriers or hindrances to the planning of a DLIP? PROBE: What kinds of fiscal barriers were there, if any? 15. Overall, how would you describe the DLIP planning process? PROBE: If possible, please outline any distinct phases. 16. Would you describe any short-term victories that were memorable, if there were any? (Kotter 6) PROBE: How were these short-term victories shared out? PROBE: In contrast, were there any setbacks? Before we transition into the next round of questions, I was wondering if you would like to add anything about why the decision to implement a DLIP was made? Now I’d like to ask you about the first year of implementation. RESEARCH QUESTION #2: What is the nature of implementation in the first year of DLIP in one K-12 district? I. Implementation Process 1. How would you describe your role in the implementation process? 2. What were the phases of implementation, if any, you planned for? PROBE: What were the purposes of each phase? PROBE: What kinds of goals were established during the different phases. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 259 3. Would you please describe the process your district went through, chronologically, during the first year of the DLIP? 4. How was the district, if at all, able to establish a sense of shared leadership between the sites and the district in implementing the DLIP? (Kotter 5) 4. What kinds of adjustments were made, if any, to district trainings to prepare staff for DLIP? (Kotter 5) How, if at all, did the trainings change when the district started to implement the DLIP? 5. Can you describe the most recent training for DLIP staff? PROBE: what topics were covered? How was the training structured? 6. Once curriculum and report cards were established, and the DLIP was implemented at the first site, how did you maintain or build momentum to add a second site? (Kotter 7) PROBE: In other words, how did you consolidate short-term successes with the opening of one site to produce more change for the district by opening a second site? 7. Could you tell me more about the challenging parts of the implementation process during the first year? PROBE: What was the adjustment in curriculum like? PROBE: How about the assessments? PROBE: Describe how parents adjusted to the new program. 8. What are some ideal supports teachers could receive to help with implementation? PROBE: How can district leaders enable teachers to grow in their capacity for working in a DLIP by removing any barriers? (Kotter 5) PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 260 9. In addition to the parts that were challenging, please describe the parts that went well in the implementation process. 10. Please describe some key wins you experienced during the first year of the implementation process. (Kotter 7) PROBE: What kinds of differences, if any, have you noticed between the implementation at your first school up until now at the second school? 11. How would you measure the success of the first year of implementation? 12. Overall, how would you describe the planning and implementation stages? PROBE: Are you able to describe separate phases or stages in the process? If so, how would you describe these stages? 13. Some people would say it is not the role of public schools to spend time and funds on extra activities like learning another language. How would you respond to this? (Kotter 8) 14. What kinds of outcomes for students in the DLIP do you see in the near future? (Kotter 8) 15. If you can compare a student currently in the DLIP and a student not in the DLIP, what academic or social outcomes for each one 15 years into the future? How are these outcomes different and similar? 16. Based on your experience thus far, how would you describe your district’s level of adoption to the new program? PROBE: Please describe what you foresee as the future of the DLIP here in your district? Overall, how has the experience been for you? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 261 Before we conclude, is there anything that you feel I should have asked about as it relates to the planning and implementation of DLIP in your district? Is there anything else you would like to add? Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 262 Appendix B Interview Protocol Teachers Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study about the implementation of dual language immersion programs. Primarily, I am interested in why your district decided to implement a DLIP and how you planned for its implementation. In addition, I’d like to understand what the first year of implementation was like. Before we get started, I’d like to tell you a little bit about myself. I currently work for Temple City Unified School District as an elementary school administrator. Although, my title is Curriculum Coordinator, I work at a TK-6 school alongside the principal. I have also taught in San Diego City Schools as a bilingual teacher and hold a BCLAD and single subject Spanish credential. My husband, sons, and I speak Spanish and English in our home. Although I value bilingualism, I understand there are different reasons districts decide to implement DLIPs. I’m interested in learning about all angles and reasons why a district decides to plan for and implement a DLIP. I appreciate the time you have set aside to answers some of my questions. The interview should take about an hour and a half, does that work for you? I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. Only I will have access to the recording. May I have your permission to record our conversation? You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to, and you can withdraw your participation at any time. Your identity will be kept confidential and I will use a pseudonym when I include your response in my final paper. I am happy to provide you a copy of the transcription to ensure I am holding true to your voice as well as a copy of the final study if you are interested. I want to assure you I am strictly wearing the hat of a researcher today. What this means is that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on how you are performing in your role here in the school district. I am really interested in learning from you and the process you went through as you planned and implemented the Dual Language Immersion Program. I would like to hear the perspectives of the district leadership team, site principals, teachers, board members, and parents. I would also like to capture the nature of the first year of implementation. Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? If you don’t have any more questions I would like to have your permission to begin the interview. RESEARCH QUESTION #1: How and for what reasons did a K-12 district plan for a dual language immersion program (DLIP)? I would like to ask you a few questions regarding your background in education. I. Educational Background 1. Would you please tell me about your background in education? PROBE: What roles have you held? How long have you held these positions? 2. How did you first get started working in a DLIP? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 263 PROBE: What interested you in teaching in a dual language immersion program, if anything? How were you recruited to work in this program? How did you hear about the opening? 3. Tell me about your own experiences learning language. 4. What are your thoughts on students learning another language as part of their K-6 education? PROBE: How would you respond to someone who said elementary students are too young for foreign language learning. Thank you for sharing your educational background with me. Now I’d like to ask you about the reasons why your district decided to implement a DLIP. II. Reasons for DLIP Implementation 1. Could you walk me through the reasons why your district decided to implement a DLIP? PROBE: How did the idea of a DLIP come about? 2. Give me an example of a conversation you had describing why your district was going to move forward with DLIP implementation. 3. What kinds of topics were discussed? 4. What rationales were laid out? 5. What was the role of district office staff in decision-making? 6. How were others outside of the district office involved in the decision-making meetings, if at all? 7. What is the vision of the school district generally speaking? 8. How does the implementation of a DLIP connect to the vision or goals of the district, if at all? 9. How would you describe the goals of a DLIP? PROBE: How did you learn about the goals you just described? 10. What role did these goals of a DLIP play in the district’s decision to implement the program, if any? 11. What were other reasons why the district decided to implement a DLIP, if any? PROBE: Have there been any demographic changes in the district’s recent history, which would add to the rationale of DLIP implementation? PROBE: How did fiscal considerations factor into a decision to implement DLIPs, if at all? PROBE: How did pressures from community factor into a decision to implement DLIPs, if at all? Before we transition into the next round of questions, I was wondering if you would like to add anything about why the decision to implement a DLIP was made? Now I’d like to ask you about the planning phase. III. Planning Phase 1. How were teachers informed of the planning phase of the DLIP? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 264 2. How were teachers involved in the planning phase, if at all? PROBE: What is your recollection of how the DLIP came to be? 3. How were the goals of a DLIP used to plan for the program design, if at all? PROBE: What kinds of goals were discussed? How was program design discussed as part of the goals, if at all? 4. How were teachers included in the identification of students and families for the program? PROBE: How were special needs and special education students considered, if at all? 5. How did the district identify needs of children in the community and arrive at DLIPs as a way to meet those needs? How about parent needs? 6. When it came time to hire and recruit teachers for the DLIP, how were teachers involved? 7. How were teachers involved in the process of familiarizing staff and families about DLIPs? How was research used to familiarize staff and families to the concept of DLIP? PROBE: When did this process begin? Can you recount for me how the district set out to inform staff and families about the DLIP? 8. What was the process for selecting appropriate curriculum and assessments? PROBE: What was the level of involvement of teachers in this process? 9. Overall, how would you describe the DLIP planning phase? How did you know when the district shifted away from planning and started to implement the DLIP? PROBE: At what point did the discussion move from planning to the act of implementation, if there was such a point? What marked the end of planning Now I’d like to ask you about the first year of implementation. RESEARCH QUESTION #2: What is the nature of implementation in the first year of DLIP in one K-12 district? I. Implementation Process 1.How would you describe your role in the DLIP implementation process? 2. Would you please describe the process your district went through, chronologically, during the first year of the DLIP? Probes: a. Who was involved? b. Were meetings held? 3. What kind of training does the district offer teachers for implementing DLIP? PROBE: What subject areas do teachers receive training in? 5. Can you describe the most recent training you attended? PROBE: what topics were covered? How was the training structured? What was your main takeaway learning? 6. How, if at all, did the trainings change when the district started to implement the DLIP? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 265 PROBE: What kinds of conferences did teachers attend during the first year of DLIP? How was the selection of conferences different, if at all, from pre DLIP years? 3. What kind of outreach to other DLIP districts occurred, if any, during the first year of implementation? PROBE: If there were partnerships formed with outside districts or organizations, what was the nature of the partnership? 4. What was the process of selecting curriculum for the DLIP? 5. How were teachers involved in the selection of materials, if at all? 6. How did the district alter their assessments and/or report cards to account for the DLIP, if at all? PROBE: How does the report card for DLIP look? 7. Could you tell me about the challenging parts of the implementation process during the first year? PROBE: What was the adjustment in curriculum like? How about the assessments? Describe how parents adjusted to the new program. 8. In addition to the parts that were challenging, please describe what went well in the first year of implementation. 9. What supports did you receive (from the district, from the school administration) that facilitated your ability to implement DLIP in the first year? 10. What barriers were removed (by the district, by the school administration) that enabled you to implement the program the first year? 11. What is the ideal support teachers can receive to help with implementation? PROBE: How can district leaders enable teachers to grow in their capacity for working in a DLIP by removing any barriers? How would you measure the success of the first year of implementation? 12. Overall, how would you describe the implementation stage? PROBE: How was implementation different from planning? Are you able to describe separate phases or stages in the process? If so, how would you describe these stages? 13. Some people would say it is not the role of public schools to spend time and funds on extra activities like learning another language. How would you respond to this? 14. Would you provide me with some final thoughts about the implementation of a DLIP? 15. What kinds of outcomes for students in the DLIP do you see in the near future? 16. If you can compare a student currently in the DLIP and a student not in the DLIP, what academic or social outcomes for each one 15 years into the future? How are these outcomes different and similar? 17. Based on your experience thus far, how would you describe your district’s level of adoption to the new program? PROBE: Please describe what you foresee as the future of the DLIP here in your district? Overall, how has the experience been for you? Before we conclude, is there anything that you feel I should have asked about as it relates to the planning and implementation of DLIP in your district and school? Is there anything else you would like to add? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 266 Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 267 Appendix C Natasha Neumann Interview Protocol Parents Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study about the implementation of dual language immersion programs. I am interested in why your district decided to implement a DLIP and how they planned for it. In addition, I’d like to understand what the first year of implementation was like. Before we get started, I’d like to tell you a little bit about myself. I currently work for Temple City Unified School District as an elementary school administrator. Although, my title is Curriculum Coordinator, I work at a TK-6 school alongside the principal. I have also taught in San Diego City Schools as a bilingual teacher and hold a BCLAD and single subject Spanish credential. My husband, sons, and I speak Spanish and English in our home. And while I value bilingualism, I am interested in hearing about the different perspectives of different parents. I appreciate the time you have set aside to answers some of my questions. The interview should take about an hour and a half, does that work for you? I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. May I have your permission to record our conversation? You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to, and you can withdraw your participation at any time. Your identity will be kept confidential and I will use a pseudonym when I include your response in my final paper. I am happy to provide you a copy of the transcription to ensure I am holding true to your voice as well as a copy of the final study if you are interested. Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? As I touched upon earlier, I am interested in how and for what reasons a K-12 district plans for a dual language immersion program. I would like to hear the perspectives of the district leadership team, site principals, teachers, board members, and parents. I would also like to capture the nature of the first year of implementation. If you don’t have any more questions I would like to have your permission to begin the interview. RESEARCH QUESTION #1: How and for what reasons did a K-12 district plan for a dual language immersion program (DLIP)? I would like to ask you a few questions regarding your educational background in order to understand how it may have influenced your decision to place your child in a dual language immersion program. I. Educational Background 1. Would you please tell me about your educational background? 2. Please tell me about your own experiences learning language. 3. What interested you in placing your child in a dual language immersion program? 4. How did you first hear about the DLIP here? Tell me about how the district first told you about the DLIP. 5. PROBE: Did you hear from other parents? Teachers? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 268 6. PROBE: How was the DLIP messaged out to parents in the community? 7. What are your thoughts on students learning another language as part of their K-6 education? II. Reasons for DLIP Implementation 1. Could you walk me through the reasons, if you’re aware of them, why your district decided to implement a DLIP? PROBE: What is your understanding of how a DLIP came about? How did parents drive the conversation and decision-making, if at all? 2. Give me an example of a conversation you had describing why your district was going to move forward with DLIP implementation. PROBE: Where were conversations around a DLIP held? PROBE: How would you characterize these conversations – formal, informal, planned, public? 3. How did parents express interest in implementing a DLIP, if at all? 4. Do you know what the vision of the school district is? How does the idea of a DLIP connect to the vision or goals of the district? 5. How did the district involve parents, if at all, in their decision to plan for and implement a DLIP? 6. What do you think the relationship is between the needs of students in the community and the decision to implement a DLIP is? 7. How do you think the district identified the needs of parents and children in the community to arrive at DLIPs as a way to meet those needs? Before we transition into the next round of questions, I was wondering if you would like to add anything about why the decision to implement a DLIP was made? Now I’d like to ask you about how the district planned for the DLIP. III. Planning Phase 1. How involved were you personally, if at all, in the planning phase before the program began? What role did you have in the planning process? 2. How were other parents involved? 3. How did the district involve parents when they were deciding what kind of program would be best for the families if at all? 4. How did the district involve parents when they were deciding what curriculum and assessments to use, if at all? What was the level of involvement like for parents in the selection of materials? 5. How did the district recruit families and students into the DLIP kindergarten class? 6. What kinds of information did parents in the community receive? 7. At what point in the calendar year were you made aware of the district’s decision to start a DLIP? 8. From that point, please describe what the district did to encourage you to enroll your child in the DLIP. PROBE: what communications did they put out? What events and/or meetings did they hold? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 269 9. Once you expressed interest in the program, what was the process of signing up or registering like? 10. How were you informed of what the program or typical school day would look like in a DLIP? 11. How was research used to tell parents about DLIPs? Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the implementation phase. RESEARCH QUESTION #2: What is the nature of implementation in the first year of DLIP in one K-12 district? IV. Implementation Process 1. How would you describe your level of involvement currently in the DLIP? How would you say your involvement differs from other parents? 2. Now that the DLIP has been running for a year and a half, how would you describe the experience from your perspective as a parent? PROBE: How about your child’s perspective? PROBE: How has it been going? 3. What was your child’s exposure to multiple languages like before joining the DLIP? 4. How do you see a DLIP different from a monolingual school day, if at all? 5. What kinds of information do you receive about the DLIP? PROBE: Do you receive invitations to parent meetings? PROBE: Do you receive emails with updates on the program? 6. What kinds of adjustments, if any, were made to district community meetings to prepare parents for DLIP? 7. Tell me about the assessments and/or report cards the district is currently using. How did the district alter their assessments and/or report cards to account for the DLIP, if at all? PROBE: How were parents informed, if at all? 8. What part of the program have you found to be challenging? 9. Could you tell me more about the challenging parts during this first year? 10. What have you found to be a positive outcome of the DLIP in this first year? 11. What do you think would make this program a success in these first few years? 12. What do you think we would see if the program is a success? How would we know that it was a good idea to implement a DLIP? 13. Some people would say it is not the role of public schools to spend time and funds on extra activities like learning another language. How would you respond to this? 14. What kinds of outcomes for students in the DLIP do you see in the near future? 15. If you can compare a student currently in the DLIP and a student not in the DLIP, what academic or social outcomes for each one 15 years into the future? How are these outcomes different and similar? Before we conclude, is there anything that you feel I should have asked about? Is there anything else you would like to add? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 270 Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 271 Appendix D Recruitment Letter Natasha Neumann USC Doctoral Candidate nneumann@usc.edu Dear Participant, I am currently an Ed.D. student at USC’s Rossier School of Education. My dissertation is a case study examining why and how a K-12 school district plans for and implements a dual language immersion program(DLIP). I have recently passed my proposal defense and am ready for data collection. I am interested in studying the nature of Arcos Unified’s recent implementation of a DLIP. I believe Arcos Unified School District is the best choice for my study as the district has completed its first year of implementation. My proposal is to study at two different school sites. My research questions and possible participants to interview are outlined in the following table. Research Questions Participants RQ1: How and for what reasons does a district plan for a dual language immersion program? • Three district office personnel • Two site principals • One teacher • One parent with child in first year of DLIP RQ2: What is the nature of implementation in the first years of DLIP? • Three district office personnel • Two site principals • One teacher • One parent with child in first year of DLIP I am also interested in looking at any documents produced for the public in the last two years relating to the planning and implementation of the DLIP program. This data will allow me to explore and describe how your district planned for and implemented a DLIP. My ultimate hope for this case study is to provide an example to other school district leaders and policy makers in the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program by describing the process that one school district used. Be advised that in accordance with USC’s IRB policy, I will use a pseudonym for the district and for all the participants in my study so as to maintain your district and staff’s confidentiality. Please consider allowing me to conduct my study in your school district. I look forward to learning about how your school district planned for and implemented a dual language immersion program at two different school sites. I would love to have the opportunity to speak to you more about my study. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with questions or concerns at XXX-XXX-XXXX. Sincerely, Natasha A. Neumann USC Doctoral Candidate PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 272 Appendix E Information Sheet PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DLIP 273
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Dual language immersion programs are growing in number across the nation in response to both the needs of English language learners and native English speakers to mutually acquire a second language while learning academic content area beginning in kindergarten. The United States, and California in particular, continue to see the K-12 English language learner population grow. Simultaneously, parents and educators are seeking innovative strategies to prepare all students for a globalized economy, equipping students with a second language. Despite the growing popularity of DLIPs, there is a dearth of research on the planning and implementation of DLIPs. This study examined the reasons behind a K-12 school district’s decision to implement a dual language immersion program as well as explored the planning process the school district went through prior to implementation. Additionally, the nature of the initial year of implementation was examined. The findings from this qualitative case study were constructed from the stories and voices of ten different district and community stakeholders involved in the DLIP planning and implementation. The larger objective of this study was to inform school districts and educational practitioners interested in exploring a DLIP of the feasibility of applying this study to their school or district. The findings revealed a cyclical process of planning and implementation over a period of at least six years. Other findings indicated the significance of context and community when considering DLIP implementation as well as understanding the rationale behind the decision. The significance of the stakeholders’ second language background and attitudes towards second language acquisition also surfaced. Finally, this dissertation described implications and made recommendations for future DLIP implementers.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment
PDF
A case study of the roles of principals in dual language immersion programs
PDF
Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program
PDF
A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program
PDF
Implementing Chinese-English dual language programs in international schools: a study for an international school in southeast Asia
PDF
Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms
PDF
The perceived effectiveness of dual language programs at the middle school level
PDF
Examining dual language immersion program instructional practices with regard to cognitive load theory
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom
PDF
A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education
PDF
Factors related to the training, recruitment, and retention of quality bilingual teachers in dual language immersion programs in international schools
PDF
Factors contributing to outperformance in nontraditional urban schools: a case study of a public elementary school with a dual immersion program
PDF
Critical ambitious language pedagogy for cognitive academic language proficiency development in two-way immersion schools: teachers' ideologies and practices
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners
PDF
Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners
PDF
A case study of one poʻokumu kaiapuni
PDF
Creating a language immersion teacher recruitment pipeline: understanding the needs and motivation of prospective candidates
PDF
Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Neumann, Natasha Aino
(author)
Core Title
A case study on the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program in a K-12 school district
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/27/2017
Defense Date
05/03/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
bilingual education,bilingual learners,challenges of implementing dual language immersion program,community and dual immersion,DLIP,dual immersion,dual language,dual language immersion program,Educational Leadership,English language learners,implementation of dual language immersion program,OAI-PMH Harvest,parents and dual immersion,planning of dual language immersion program,rationale for dual language immersion program,two-way immersion
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Samkian, Artineh (
committee chair
), Escalante, Michael (
committee member
), Kistler, Melissa (
committee member
)
Creator Email
natashaneumann@hotmail.com,natashaneumann99@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-420318
Unique identifier
UC11265104
Identifier
etd-NeumannNat-5652.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-420318 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-NeumannNat-5652.pdf
Dmrecord
420318
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Neumann, Natasha Aino
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
bilingual education
bilingual learners
challenges of implementing dual language immersion program
community and dual immersion
DLIP
dual immersion
dual language
dual language immersion program
English language learners
implementation of dual language immersion program
parents and dual immersion
planning of dual language immersion program
rationale for dual language immersion program
two-way immersion