University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teacher beliefs on bilingual education for English learners post proposition 227

(USC Thesis Other)

Teacher beliefs on bilingual education for English learners post proposition 227

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TEACHER BELIEFS ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS
POST PROPOSITION 227

by

Karen Jeannette Orellana

_________________________________________

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Karen Jeannette Orellana
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank God for giving me the patience and
endurance to finish this dissertation that has taken years to complete. I thank my parents
Maribel and Armando Orellana who were my first teachers and who continue to be my
cheerleaders. I also thank my brilliant brother Kevin who helped me with some computer
problems as I revised my dissertation numerous times. I would also like to thank my
grandparents who reinforced my parents’ beliefs that knowledge is power, and my whole
family for their words of encouragement and their sense of humor.
Someone I owe thanks to is Dr. Reynaldo Baca, my chair and advisor. I thank
him for his confidence in me and for the patience he had with me to finish this
dissertation. I feel very fortunate to have worked with someone like Dr. Baca who knows
his craft so well. His positive attitude always inspired me to keep moving forward and
write. I thank him for his constructivist process of guiding me through my dissertation. It
helped me be a more confident knowledgeable scholar and teacher.
Dr. Gokce Gokalp is another brilliant person I would like to thank. As my
dissertation committee member, she took the time to guide me in writing up the data I had
gathered for this dissertation. At times when I felt uncertain about how to go about
writing about the study’s results she helped me find the way to write it clearly. Her time
and support of my study was an important factor putting an end to the final stages of my
doctorate experience.
This dissertation has taken many turns and I would like to thank Dr. Pedro Garcia
for being in my dissertation committee in its final stages. I also thank Dr. Elvira Armas
iii

and Dr. Michael Genzuk for initially helping me organize the topic of my dissertation and
for encouraging me to pursue the topic of English learners. I thank my professors at USC
who presented me with the knowledge and refined skills to be able to present ideas in any
arena. I also thank my professors of my Amherst College undergraduate experience,
specifically Professor Michelle Barale, Professor Barry O’Connell, and Professor Martin
Espada for being great teachers and supporting my ideas since the beginning of my
college career.
My experience at USC was also enriched by all the members in Cohort 7 who
shared classes with me. I thank all of my classmates for teaching me by their example
and their expertise. I learned plenty from their discussions in class as they incorporated
workplace knowledge and theory. I admire them for their professionalism and
mentorship.
I am grateful for all my coworkers who teach at a school with a large amount of
English language learning children. I have learned tremendously from them and I thank
them for always being supportive of me through the rough times in public education.
Thank you to Adriana Galvan, Marisa Galindo, Carlos Gomez, Tania Gomez, and Carlos
Cerdan for allowing me to test out my survey questions early on in my study. I thank Ms.
Smith and Ms.Torres from Banning, California for sharing with me great knowledge
from their teaching experience. Their ideas and thoughts were useful to my early pilot
interviews about bilingual education. I am thankful to all the teachers that participated in
my study because without their ideas this study would not have been possible.
iv

Throughout this dissertation I have taught many students at the elementary school
level and I thank them. They have inspired me to continue to discover knowledge on
how to make schools better. They always reminded me of the purpose for continuing to
pursue my doctorate degree in education.
Also another person to thank is my friend Eduardo Contreras for always inspiring
me to believe in myself and to finish my dissertation. I also thank Erika Torres and her
family for always supporting me. I thank Sandra Martinez for always believing in me
and supporting me in the good, the bad, and the ugly. I am thankful for my friends Kieu,
Gloria, Julio, Marissa, Jenniffer, Caitlyn, Pablo, Cristopher, Iris, Seris, Nacia, Sudabeth,
Tania, Ann Marie, LeeAnn, and all the friends far and near that shared in the experience
of always watching me read and write.
Finally, I thank the person closest to me at the end, who watched as I struggled to
piece this document together. I thank Ron for being supportive at the end of this quest to
finish the dissertation. It was certainly a most stressful time and he had the patience,
humor, love, and scholarly expertise to inspire me and remind me that this study would
have a happy ending. I appreciate the singing, the home cooked meals, and the help with
the computer that he provided me at crunch time.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1
Teacher Beliefs 3
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 6
Importance of the Study 6
Limitations 7
Delimitations 7
Definition of Terms 8
Bilingual Teachers 8
Developmental Bilingual Education 8
English Immersion 8
English Learners 8
English Language Development (ELD) 8
ELD and Specially Designed Academic Instruction in
English (SDAIE) 9
ELD and SDAIE with Primary Language Support 9
Transitional Bilingual Education 9
Two-Way or Dual Language Bilingual Education 9
Waivers 10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 11
History of Proposition 227 11
Language Legislation and Codes 12
Introduction to Teacher Beliefs 14
Teachers Beliefs 15
Impact of Proposition 227 on Teachers 18
Impact of Initiatives on Teachers 20
Themes Emerged from the Literature 22
Language Acquisition Theories 23
English Learner Programs 27
Conclusion 29

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 30
Participants 30
Research Setting 31
vi

Research Questions 31
Instruments 31
Pilot Study 35
Data Collection 38
Data Analysis 38

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 40
Descriptive Analysis 41
T-test 44
Results by Research Questions 46

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 49
Review of Problem Statement 49
Summary of Findings 51
Implications for Research 55
Implications for Practice 55
Limitations 56
Recommendations for Future Study 57

EPILOGUE 59
REFERENCES 60
APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT 65
APPENDIX B: SURVEY 68

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Questions for Pilot Study 36
Table 2: Themes for Pilot Study Survey 37
Table 3: Average Means for Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices of Teachers in
Bilingual and Non-Bilingual Programs 44
Table 4: T-tests for Equality of Means for Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices of
Bilingual and Non-Bilingual Programs 46

viii

ABSTRACT
This study explored the attitudes and beliefs towards bilingual education and English
learners of teachers in bilingual education programs and non-bilingual education
programs. This quantitative study surveyed teachers 11 years after the passing of
Proposition 227, a law aimed to reform bilingual education in California. The
participating teachers taught in two southern California school districts. The findings
were that there was a difference between teacher beliefs of teachers in bilingual education
programs and teachers teaching in non-bilingual education programs. T-tests were
conducted and the results indicated that teachers in bilingual education programs in
general had more positive beliefs towards bilingual education than did teachers in non-
bilingual programs. Other findings were that while there was no significant difference in
attitudes between teachers in bilingual education programs and non-bilingual education
programs there was a difference in teaching practices that take into consideration
students’ language needs. Teachers in bilingual education programs were found to be
more likely to consider their English language learning students’ needs in their teaching
practices.

1

CHAPTER ONE: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In 1998 California voters passed Proposition 227 into law and twelve years later it
is still being implemented in California schools. Proposition 227 established that English
should be the official language of instruction in all California schools (Education Code,
Section 30-30.5, 2006). California schools and the quality of education for English
learners, one-fourth of the state’s public school children, have been affected by the
passing of Proposition 227 (Gandara, 2009). An English learner is defined by the
California Department of Education (2006) as a child who does not speak English or
whose native language is not English, and who is unable to perform classroom work in
English. According to the literature on the aftermath of Proposition 227 there are many
teachers that find themselves in situations where their ideological views and educational
histories conflict with education policies (Stritikus, 2003).
This study investigates how implementation of Proposition 227 has affected
bilingual teachers in the Southern California. Eleven years after its implementation in the
Los Angeles School District, Proposition 227 is still in place. Lapayese (2005) writes
that teachers are increasingly facing pressures to abide by English-only reforms from the
state and federal government. State and Federal mandates such as Proposition 227 and
No Child Left Behind, NCLB, a reform signed into federal law in 2002, are mandates that
affect teachers, especially teachers of English learners (Arellano-Houchin, Flamenco,
Merlos, & Segura, 2001).
2

Implementation of Proposition 227 affects the educators as well as the students
and their families. Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, and Asato (2000) explain that
Proposition 227 has affected how large-scale new language and literacy reform impact
classroom teachers who used to use primary language with their students. In their study,
Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, and Asato (2000) find that Proposition 227 abolished the
bilingual programs in some school districts. Language ideology and social political
context are address by this study to show that Proposition 227 was not just aimed at how
teachers taught literacy but also at how teachers were teaching children with limited
English (Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, & Asato, 2000).
This study examines the attitudes teachers have about teaching English learners
and their beliefs about bilingual education, which entails the use of the students’ primary
language, for English learners. This study uses a self-concept interpretation of cognitive
dissonance theory, which is a theory that examines teacher beliefs and individuals’
awareness about their beliefs and knowledge. This study also examines whether there is
a difference between the beliefs of teachers currently teaching in bilingual programs and
those teachers currently teaching in non-bilingual programs. The teachers that were
surveyed in this study were teaching English learners but these teachers were teaching in
bilingual and non-bilingual programs. Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about their current
curriculum whether in a bilingual or non-bilingual setting places them in a situation of
possible dissonance. Proposition 227 places these teachers of English learners in a
situation where they have to decide whether to modify their practices according to
bilingual education ideology or to accept the English immersion curriculum. The English
3

immersion curriculum does not include the use of the English learning students’ primary
language.
Teacher Beliefs
This study is guided by the research on teacher beliefs. The research by Ulanoff
and Golapalakrishnan (2004) provides some of that insight by including a study on future
teachers of diverse learners. Ulanoff and Golapalakrishnan (2004) show that not
presenting certain teaching hurdles in a teacher education setting, promotes the
assumption that there are no hurdles to teaching. These untold stories that include
difficulties and teacher reflection on solutions to meet the challenges in teaching are the
stories that need to be included in educational research. Ulanoff and Golapalakrishnan
explore how stories of teacher candidates are relevant to how they teach the next
generation of students with similar growing-up issues. Ulanoff and Golapalakrishnan’s
study looks at bilingual teachers and the diversity of teachers. These authors argue that
many studies focus on the monolingual monocultural teacher ignoring the ethnically and
linguistically diverse teacher (Ulanoff & Golapalakrishnan, 2004). The purpose of
Ulanoff and Golapalakrishnan is to find the relevance teacher autobiographical narratives
have in teacher education research. These narratives allow for the teacher candidates to
reflect upon their practices. This reflection demonstrates that autobiographical narratives
help pre-service teachers’ perceptions about how they will view the world when they are
teachers (2004).
Ulanoff and Vega-Castaneda (2004) also write that Proposition 227 affected
bilingual educators. These teachers felt overloaded by trying to provide all resources for
4

their students. The study found that some of the bilingual teachers felt isolated and had
low morale. This research about Proposition 227 implementation will help frame the
questions about how specifically bilingual teachers in California are affected by
Proposition 227. Ulanoff and Vega-Castaneda’s (2004) paper addresses bilingual
teachers’ conundrum once they finished their BCLAD, the bilingual education credential,
programs and their Master’s programs. In their study, Ulanoff and Vega-Castaneda
(2004) found that few of the bilingual teachers that were interviewed, observed,
interviewed in focus groups and surveyed worked as bilingual teachers in a bilingual
program. Ulanoff and Vega-Castaneda (2004) looked at the perceptions teachers had
about implementing Proposition 227. These teachers felt that materials in the primary
language were not available at their schools for various reasons. Through the interviews
it was found that the schools where these teachers taught did not purchase materials in the
primary language on time for the beginning of the school year or books were removed
from the classrooms (Ulanoff & Vega-Castaneda, 2004).
During focus groups Ulanoff and Vega-Castaneda (2004) found that many of the
teachers supplemented their own Spanish materials and that spending due to state
mandates for English Language Development, ELD, had placed priority in buying an
ELD program. These teachers felt isolated from their pro Proposition 227 colleagues and
as a result of the changed attitudes towards bilingual teachers statewide some teachers
demonstrated resistance. These teachers used Spanish to assist their students through the
mandatory thirty days of English Immersion once the students’ parents signed the
bilingual program waivers (2004).
5

Ulanoff and Vega-Castaneda (2004) also found that it is important to inquire on
bilingual teachers’ perspectives on Proposition 227. The impact on the education of
English learners post Proposition 227 could be summarized with more depth if teacher
perspectives are studied as well (2004). The manner in which California defines
bilingual education is a crucial topic for further research. In post Proposition 227 times
the manner in which former and current bilingual teachers define the bilingual program is
crucial to California’s success in educating its students and future citizens. Therefore,
teacher beliefs and attitudes about the curriculum is important to examine if educational
reform is to be implemented successfully.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to find out more information about the beliefs and
attitudes of teachers who teach English learners in the post Proposition 227 era. The
participants in this study were teachers in bilingual and non-bilingual programs. This
study examined teacher beliefs and attitudes by using a quantitative method. Responses
to a survey, originally used by Shin and Krashen (1996), were used to analyze which
teachers had a more positive attitude or belief about bilingual education and their current
teaching practices. Cognitive dissonance theory was used in this study as the theoretical
framework because it examines the personal dilemmas teachers experience as they
perform their craft, teaching. The self-consistency interpretation of cognitive dissonance
theory was used to examine teacher beliefs and attitudes about bilingual education 11
years after Proposition 227 passed. The self-consistency revision of cognitive dissonance
theory is one that examines the level individuals are mindful or aware of a belief in a
6

particular subject (Aronson, 1999). This theory helped analyze teacher beliefs about the
particular subject of bilingual education and their current teaching practices.
Research Questions
1. Do teachers in bilingual education programs have more positive attitudes
towards English learners and more positive beliefs about bilingual education
for English learners than do teachers in non-bilingual education programs?
2. Are teachers in bilingual education programs more likely to consider English
learning students’ needs in their teaching practices than teachers in non-
bilingual education programs?
Importance of the Study
This study is important because it provides further research on the topic of teacher
beliefs on bilingual education. Research on teacher beliefs shows that they are important
to study if one is to implement a new program successfully. There has been a need for
students in California to improve in academic achievement. Hence, there have been
many reforms statewide attempting to solve this problem. Proposition 227 has been one
of these reforms which mandated students be taught in English. As a result, English
learning students’ needs are currently being addressed by a majority of English
immersion programs.
Teachers are the ones who implement the reforms that are mandated. Teachers
are people closest to the interaction with the students. The knowledge and beliefs in the
pedagogy they use in their classrooms to teach is important to document. A reform is
only as good as the people who implement. Teachers are the ones who execute the
7

teaching programs so their attitudes and beliefs are important to include in educational
discourse.
Limitations
The limitations of this study were that the surveys in the study were done at
different times after the passing of Proposition 227 and were done in two different school
districts in southern California. The accuracy of the responses to the survey’s questions
was also out of the control of the researcher. The number of teachers who responded to
the survey as well as the type of bilingual programs that existed at the different schools of
these teachers was also a limitation.
Delimitations
This study did not focus on the acquisition of a second language. This study
investigated teachers’ beliefs and practices on bilingual education for English learners in
California post Proposition 227. Second language acquisition is an important topic
because it explains some of the reasons bilingual programs existed before the passing of
Proposition 227. The concern of teaching children English as a second language in the
United States has always been found in the history of education (Taylor, 1996). This
study will not focus specifically on the different ways in which children learn language or
other subjects in school, despite its relevancy for further study. This study focuses on
bilingual teachers’ attitudes about their current practices teaching with or without their
students’ primary language.

8

Definition of Terms
Bilingual Teachers
Teachers in California with a California certified bilingual credential. This
includes teachers identified as having a BCC and a BCLAD. These teachers are also
referred to as bilingual educators and bilingual education teachers (CCTC, 2007).
Developmental Bilingual Education
Education is in the child’s native language for an extended duration, accompanied
by education in English. The goal of this program is to develop bilingualism and
biliteracy in both languages. This program is available to students whose native language
is not English (Crawford, 2004).
English Immersion
A program that involves teaching English to English learning students primarily
in English. The teacher’s use of the students’ first language is limited primarily for
clarification of English instruction. Most students are moved into mainstream classes
after 2 or 3 years. This program is also known as a Structured English Immersion
program (Crawford, 2004).
English Learners
Refers to students who are in the process of learning English as a new language;
also known as English Language Learners (Peregogy & Boyle, 2001).
English Language Development (ELD)
ELD is English language instruction appropriate for the student’s identified level
of language proficiency. It is consistently implemented and designed to promote second
9

language acquisition of listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Peregogy & Boyle,
2001).
ELD and Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE)
This is a program designed for English language learners and at minimum two
academic subjects required for grade promotion or graduation taught through Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in English. SDAIE is an approach used to teach
academic courses to English learners in English. It is designed for non-native speakers of
English. These students are not receiving primary language support as described below
(CCTC, 2007).
ELD and SDAIE with Primary Language Support
These are English learners receiving ELD and SDAIE as described above, with
primary language support (L1 support). L1 support is instructional support through the
student’s primary language. It may include oral language development in the student’s
primary language (CCTC, 2007).
Transitional Bilingual Education
This involves education in a child’s native language, typically for no more than
three to four years, to ensure that students do not fall behind in content areas like math,
science, and social studies while they are learning English. The goal of this program is
English acquisition only (Crawford, 2004).
Two-Way or Dual Language Bilingual Education
This program is designed to help native and non-native English speakers become
bilingual and biliterate (Krashen, 1991).
10

Waivers
In Proposition 227 legislation, also known as the English Language Education for
Immigrant Children Act of 1998, waivers refer to the process where parents submit a
written request that their children be transferred to a class that uses bilingual education
methodology as opposed to English immersion (CCTC, 2007).

11

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review will examine the research about Proposition 227 and teacher
beliefs about teaching English learners in the aftermath of Proposition 227. This chapter
will also review studies about teaching second language learners and how a decrease in
bilingual programs in California schools has affected teacher beliefs and attitudes.
Teacher practices on how they have made an adjustment to teaching English learners will
also be addressed by the literature.
History of Proposition 227
In 1998 voters in California passed the English Language in Public Schools
Initiative Statute, Proposition 227 which was also addressed by proponents as the
“English for the Children” initiative. According to the Primary election of 1998 voter
guide, which is posted on the California government website, the arguments for it were to
change California’s bilingual education system, and use “common sense” about learning
English (Callagan, Unz, & Vega, 1998).
This argument also highlights that for most non-English speaking students
bilingual education meant a Spanish-only education for the first to seven years of school.
The proponents of Proposition 227 would require children to be taught English as soon as
they started school. To help non-English speaking students learn English classes would
provide a “sheltered English immersion.” According to the proponents of Proposition
227 Alice Callaghan, Ron Unz, and Fernando Vega (1998) the research showed sheltered
English immersion was the most effective method. When looking into the voter guide
there are no citations as to which research this statute was founded on.
12

Language Legislation and Codes
Issues of language have been a historical part of the United States educational
system. Bilingual education has been a controversial language issue since the beginning
of the bilingual education program (Arellano-Houchin, Flamenco, Merlos, &Segura,
2001). Burke (1981) writes that since education is perceived as the stairway to the
American dream bilingual education is a political issue not just an educational issue.
Investigating the beliefs of bilingual educators after the passing and implementation of
Proposition 227 is relevant to finding how Proposition 227 affected teacher practices.
This study is investigating specifically how Proposition 227 affected the beliefs and
practices of teachers teaching English Learners.
Even though education is a business left to the state, federal legislation has always
been involved in education. In 1867 the Department of Education was founded, but
abolished one year later. In 1983 A Nation at Risk report was given to the secretary of
state. In 1980 the modern Department of Education was established. The Department of
Education’s responsibilities were the following: (Taylor, 1996):
1. To provide national leadership on critical educational issues.
2. To act as a national clearinghouse for innovative ideas in education. The Stars
Schools Program that provides computer technology to poor and isolated schools
is also one of the ways the U.S. Department of Education provides for support to
education throughout the nation. Despite efforts from the Republicans in the
13

House of Representatives and the Senate to end the Stars Schools Program in
1995, the program has continued.
3. To offer and provide financial aid for U.S. college students
4. To assist local communities in meeting the needs of their students. Example:
Individuals with Disabilities Act, (IDEA).
5. To support vocational programs to provide career opportunities for students that
wish to follow vocational careers.
6. To ensure that schools that receive federal money do not discriminate on the basis
of race, gender, national origin, color, age, or disability through its Office of Civil
Rights.
In 1974 Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court decision overturned all decisions from the
lower courts. Parents of non-English-speaking Chinese students in San Francisco public
schools filed the suit. Although the issue of bilingualism with Spanish languages has
been controversial the 1974 Lau v. Nichols decision is one that started the bilingual
program nationwide (Taylor, 1996).
In the past policies for English learners have consisted of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 which in 1968 then included Title VII, also known as
the Bilingual Education Act (Evans & Hornberger, 2005). In 1994, again Title VII was
amended to limit the time a student could spend in the Title VII program (Evans &
Horberger, 2005). Then in June 2002, the federal law No Child Left Behind, NCLB, also
affected English Learners because the goal of No Child Left Behind was to develop the
English language so that the students achieve in school. Funding was attached to scores
14

of standardized assessments to show the achievement of all students. No Child Left
Behind notes that a child should be able to achieve proficient English Language
development by three years to achieve the same as a native English speaker (Evans &
Hornberger, 2005). English learners are affected by this law in many ways but also
because bilingual education does not have the equally important status as English
education due to the funding that is attached to achievement scores in English (Arce,
2004).
Introduction to Teacher Beliefs
Teacher beliefs are important for research in education, especially when studying
reforms and policies. When policies such as Proposition 227 are passed that affect
curriculum and instruction, teachers are a key component in the implementation of such
reforms (Stritikus, 2002). Stitikus (2002) found through an ethnographic method of
research that teachers perspectives clarifies the way a policy is lived, adopted, or not
adopted in the everyday routine of a classroom. Stritikus found it useful to see how
teachers perceived the language reform to find out the local impact of Proposition 227.
In many cases such as the teacher cases in this study, teacher beliefs on whether top-
down policies are beneficial to their teaching, depends on how policies are presented to
them. In addition, teachers’ beliefs extend from teachers’ own past experiences of
school.
The research shows that teacher beliefs have an essential role in educational
reform. Further investigation of teacher beliefs is therefore necessary in this dissertation
about language reform for English learners in California. Ramos (2001) found that
15

teacher beliefs may be influenced by their personal beliefs, not necessarily their
preparation courses.
Teachers Beliefs
Teachers are the ones that are closest to the students and influence on students is
very crucial to the success these students have in their educational careers (Silin &
Schwartz, 2003). Teachers in meeting the demands of the school districts find
themselves sometimes avoiding new and child oriented pedagogy because of the extra
time and effort it may take to accomplish all the work in such little time. Silin and
Schwartz’s (2003) research indicates that teachers are important to study because they are
the change agents in the classrooms. School reform cannot occur without teacher buy-in
and participation (Silin & Schwartz, 2003). Silin and Schwartz (2003) conducted a study
with staff developers that go to River City schools and help teachers implement Project
Good Start. This study allowed for insight into teachers’ instructional time as well as the
different roles the staff developers took upon themselves. The staff developers found
themselves in the middle and taking control of that status within the organization of the
district and school to become strategists, translators, and advocates (2003). Like many
programs, that are researched based to be child friendly, as was Project Good Start, the
project held little power within the school district so the teachers participating with the
project were still being held accountable for district mandated curriculum. This was
keeping teachers from completely focusing on Project Good Start. Therefore the staff
developers took on the task of translating to teachers, district mandates and assisted them
16

in strategizing how to meet both Project Good Start work with district requirements
(2003).
Teachers with bilingual education training have also been found to have stronger
beliefs in bilingual education (Shin & Krashen, 1996). Shin and Krashen (1996) found in
their study about teacher attitudes towards the principles of bilingual education that while
teachers were supportive of the actual principles of bilingual education, they did not have
the same strength of support for students being taught in a bilingual program. Shin and
Krashen (1996) surveyed 794 teachers in elementary and secondary schools to find out
about the attitudes teachers had on bilingual education. The significant finding was that
the teachers who had supplementary knowledge about bilingual education supported
bilingual education more than did those teachers that did not have more experience with
this training.
Arengo-Yarnes (2005) conducted a study about the impact Proposition 227 had on
bilingual teachers’ beliefs and practices. Arengo-Yarnes (2005) found that all bilingual
teachers whether they taught before Proposition 227 or after its implementation had
strong beliefs about bilingual education. The study also found that the strong beliefs
teachers had on bilingual education made them more likely to modify their teaching
practices to accommodate their English language learning students even after 7 years of
English immersion. This study showed that teachers’ beliefs have an impact on the
implementation of Proposition 227 in the classroom. This study also used cognitive
dissonance theory which confirms that dissonance existed.
17

As advocates for teachers the staff developer in the Silin and Schwartz (2003)
study, sat in meetings with school administrators to try to convince them of the needs of
teachers. River City schools had been taken over by the state and the staff developers
were there to ease the transition with this project. This study is important because the
reform is a top down reform that had staff developers at school sites and that worked on
behalf of the teachers. The staff developers read the resistance of teachers towards the
Good Start Project as a side effect of over burden (Silin & Schwartz, 2003). The strong
district mandated assessments and requirements were a strong force to resist for teachers
and the staff developers recognized this and assisted teachers accordingly.
Shin and Krashen (1996) have studied the subject of teacher beliefs and attitudes
about the principles of bilingual education and the participation of students in the
bilingual education. Shin and Krashen (1996) found that less than the majority of
teachers in their study supported English language learners, (previous name for English
learners), developing literacy and subject matter in the first language in school. Their
study found that teachers were opposed to continuing first language development for
children who were already bilingual. In addition they found that teachers who had
supplementary training in bilingual education or language acquisition showed stronger
support for bilingual instruction. Also these teachers that supported bilingual education
more were fluent in a second language and had more English learners in their classrooms.
Shin and Krashen (1996) suggest that teachers’ support for bilingual principles and
bilingual programs could have been influenced by practical concerns such as job security.
A key finding of Shin and Krashen (1996) was that bilingual education teachers that had
18

more training, experience with English learners, and were bilingual themselves showed
more support for bilingual education.
Another study on teacher beliefs showed that when teachers were able to put into
practice knowledge that they had gained from a professional development meeting they
were able to make a personal connection and belief to the new knowledge and how it
related to the classroom (Richardson, 1996). Richardson (1996) also found that teacher
professional development meetings did have an impact on changing teachers’ beliefs.
Richardson (1996) also wrote that teacher beliefs originate from teachers’ life
experiences that create strong and enduring cognitions that are going to challenge change.
Some studies show that teacher education does have an impact on teacher beliefs and
teaching practices (Arengo-Yarnes, 2005).
Impact of Proposition 227 on Teachers
Implementation of Proposition 227 has impacted the education of English
learners. Jolly (2000) found that programs that had support for primary language
continued with their program and had almost no changes in instruction. This study
looked at northern California districts. But there was a decrease in hiring BCLAD,
Bilingual Crosscultural Language and Academic Development, credentialed teachers
after Proposition 227. Attrition of teachers became an issue to teachers that believed in
the idea of bilingual education, but not to others (Jolly, 2000).
In addition, Arce (2004) writes that schools promote the ideological beliefs and
cultural values of the dominant class. Arce (2004) notes that there are many model
19

programs on teaching English as a second language to children. The fact that there is
more than one way to teach students to learn English already shows that the objective is
to teach to learn English. Second language acquisition research states different ways of
accomplishing this task without taking away students’ primary language. Arce (2004)
writes about the under privileged Latino students and how in 1998 California voters made
a decision that would affect the academic learning of all children learning English as a
second language. Arce (2004) also writes that despite the fact that educators did not
break the power structure in schools, resistance is active at many levels in schools.
Teachers’ perspectives have been found to be the key in implementing school
reforms (Alamillo &Viramontes, 2000). A study by Alamillo and Viramontes (2000) that
looked at 77 teachers in three instructional settings from bilingual, English immersion,
and English-only classrooms, found that Proposition 227 affected teachers in more than
one manner. After the proposition passed some teachers in bilingual programs felt that
their credential and their status did not matter as much as teachers in English Immersion
and English-only classrooms. Bilingual materials were less available to bilingual
teachers and the increased focus on English Language Development affected most those
teachers in bilingual programs. However the study found that bilingual teachers that
remained in a school that offered the bilingual program after Proposition 227 passed,
received more support from the school and community. The bilingual programs at these
schools were already strongly rooted there (Arce, 2004).

20

Impact of Initiatives on Teachers
Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, and Asato (2000) write about three case study
schools where the implementation of Proposition 227 was observed. Through
ethnographic and interview data for a year and an ongoing study Gutierrez, Baquedano-
Lopez, and Asato (2000) report findings that demonstrate that Proposition 227 was
politically charged. Teachers that were interviewed in this study stated that even the
teacher union shied away from informing its teacher membership to vote against
Proposition 227 (Baquedano-Lopez, et al., 2000). This study analyzed Proposition 227 as
being successfully promoted as the solution to low achievement in schools. This English-
Only legislation gave a forum for opponents of bilingual education. Proposition 227 is
accepted as the right solution and it justifies that those students who do not achieve are
therefore not able to learn (Gutierrez et. al, 2000, p. 8). In addition Proposition 227
allows for interview data with responses that reflect anti-bilingual education and the
belief that children should learn English in schools (Gutierrez et al., 2000, p.9).
Teachers teaching English learners had to implement the law despite their beliefs
about the importance of bilingual education. The implementation of Proposition 227 had
an impact on the teaching of English learners (Arellano-Houchin, Flamenco, Merlos, &
Segura, 2001). The implementation of Proposition 227 was a legislation that impacted
bilingual education by eradicating most of them in certain school districts, but also
affected the status of language (Arellano-Houchin et. al, 2001). Schirling, Contreras, and
Ayala (2000) show some stories about the impact Proposition 227 had on bilingual
teachers of English learners. This was a case study where less parental involvement and
21

loss of instruction were apparent to teachers. The implementation trouble, confusion on
how to use primary language, and what to tell parents about waivers for bilingual
instruction were all part of the immediate effects teachers who were on a year round
school schedule had to face after the passing of Proposition 227 (Schirling, Contreras, &
Ayala, 2000).
Torrez (2001) writes about how English Immersion dominated the instruction of
English learners in California after the passing of Proposition 227. The implementation of
Proposition 227 occurred rather quickly. During the1997-1998 academic school year,
only 25% of English Learners in elementary schools were receiving bilingual education
in California (Torrez, 2001). The other 75% of the children were not receiving the
language support they had before the reform of Proposition 227 towards English Only
instruction. Torrez (2001) analyzes that the immediate implementation of Proposition
227 confused many parents and demoralized bilingual education teachers (Torrez, 2001).
Torrez (2001) surveyed 200 graduates of the Bilingual Cross-Cultural Academic
Development, Specialist Credential program of California State University of San
Bernardino.
Torrez (2001) studied these teachers that were teaching in five different school
districts that were similar in that 45% of the students were classified as Hispanic or
Latino (Torrez, 2001). The surveys then formed five focus groups for Torrez to collect
data on the changes that had occurred due to the implementation of Proposition 227. The
interviews in focus groups concerned themselves with how Proposition 227 was being
implemented, too. Torrez found that the school districts were left with the decisions on
22

how to implement Proposition 227. But the pressure from the federal government to have
the schools provide training and programs to help acquire the English language further
pushed for the English Immersion agenda (Torrez, 2001). This study concluded that by
looking at court cases and at Proposition 227 itself the implementation process depended
on the school districts and school sites. Torrez further notes that even after thirty years of
research on best practices for English Learners, English Immersion is the program of
choice in the current nationwide educational atmosphere.
In addition to Proposition 227, a federal legislation that affected most states in the
nation since June 2002 was No Child Left Behind, NCLB, (Evans and Hornberger,
2005). Evans and Hornberger (2005) show in their review on research about language
policy nationwide, that NCLB is a policy that repeals many policies that have existed to
ensure primary language instruction for English learners. MacGillavray, Ardell, Curwen,
and Palma (2004) also found that implementing scripted curriculum for the purposes of
complying with legislation such as improving achievement of students in English
assessments, have affected teachers of English learners. It has affected their teaching
practices to the extent that the authors of the study suggest that it is like teachers have
been colonized by a dominant power (MacGillavray, Ardell, Curwen, & Palma, 2004).
Themes Emerged From the Literature
Themes that emerged from the literature review were that teachers of English
learners in bilingual programs had to change their curriculum and use of primary
language strategies to teach English immersion (Schirling, Contreras, & Ayala, 2000).
Reasons why some teachers resisted the dismantling of bilingual education by
23

Proposition 227 were teacher frustration with the change of instruction and the manner in
which students’ parents were informed or misinformed about their options (Palmer &
Garcia, 2000). Depending on whether the majority of a school supported bilingual
education or not Proposition 227 was implemented, but resistance by teachers was
different if parents and teachers were supporting bilingualism (Gutierrez, Baquedano-
Lopez, Asato, 2000). Schirling, Contreras, and Ayala’s (2000) study also concluded that
when it comes to English language learners the debate in policy still only aims at
language as the key to reform schooling. Schirling, Contreras, and Ayala (2000) suggest
that policy makers focus on other issues in schools such as access to grade-level content,
appropriate instructional materials, and prepared teachers for English language learners.
Thus, a theme that emerges from this literature is that teachers are the ones that will be
implementing this language-oriented law with guidance from their schools and school
districts, and the state.
The research questions of this study emerged from noticing untold reasons for
teachers to be partaking in implementing Proposition 227 for years after its passing
despite their responses in previous studies about their beliefs about bilingual education.
The impact of Proposition 227’s English-only law affected teachers of Spanish speaking
students or minorities that were in bilingual programs (Agee, 2004).
Language Acquisition Theories
Language acquisition theories clarify the ideas about the method in which English
learners learn a second language. The research has different views on the subject matter
of bilingual education. Krashen (1991) writes that critics have two reasons to be against
24

bilingual education. The reasons are that bilingual education does not work and that the
better alternative would be immersion. Krashen (1991) suggests that the facts be
examined first because bilingual education is a politically charged subject. Krashen
(1991) finds that when studies on bilingual education were done, the group labeled
“bilingual program” was not described in detail as to whether it was a transitional
program or dual language program or another type of program. This is an important
detail that was left out and when compared to all English immersion these bilingual
programs still came out as having no difference in the acquisition of the second language.
According to Krashen (1991) assumptions have been made about bilingual education not
teaching to the two languages. Krashen (1991) provides examples of studies done by
Rossell and Ross (1986) with transitional bilingual programs and submersion programs.
Krashen (1991) highlights that the data shows 72% of the studies demonstrated that there
was no difference between the bilingual programs and the submersion programs.
Krashen found that the regression analysis of the Rossell studies also showed frequent
teacher turnover and disorganization in the programs of the schools. Therefore there
were other variables that affected the results of the study. The non-bilingual group in this
study yielded superior results to the bilingual program. These other variables may have
affected the studies.
In addition, Krashen (1991) stated that successful bilingual education follows the
principles which are successful with language acquisition. One of these principles is the
understanding of messages and obtaining comprehensible input. The first language can
assist in understanding the messages in the second language. Another principle is that
25

background knowledge can assist second language input, which helps in acquisition of
the second language. Also, literacy development occurs in the same manner as second
language acquisition does. Krashen (1991) finds that even in studies where the bilingual
program was not described in detail the students showed equal if not better scores than
the English submersion programs. However, he finds that bilingual education programs
need to have a print-rich environment in the primary language. Krashen notes that
Cummins (1981) finds that this kind of environment provides a “common underlying
proficiency” to help ensure English language acquisition. Krashen also finds that like
critics of bilingual education, the evidence for it needs to be more consistent and more
complete.
Later, in 2002, Krashen writes about reading programs for second language
learners are different from phonics instruction. Often arguments are made against Whole
Language in opposition to other programs. Krashen (2002) indicates that the process of
learning to read is complex. He also states that the interpretations of the whole language
program are sometimes inaccurate. Therefore, more information on whole language
programs needs to be reported in studies.
In addition it is important to note that bilingualism in some cases is seen as an
asset to someone’s education. De Mejia (2002) has written about studies in an
international setting where bilingualism is a skill available to the privileged with financial
and political power (De Mejia, 2002). De Mejia (2002) credits the interest in classroom
language to the evolution from quantitative methods of research to more qualitative ones
that capture more of what happens in the classrooms. For bilingual policies ethnographic
26

and qualitative methods were found most revealing as De Mejia includes in her book. De
Mejia includes many case sketches of people who are bilingual because it is appealing to
them to learn a second language at a prestigious school (2002).
A report that is accepted by both proponents and opponents of bilingual education
with valid methodology is the Ramirez report (Cummins, 1992). The report provides
evidence that the theory of developmental and two-way bilingual education programs
works (Cummins, 1992). Biliterate students in a late-exit bilingual program were found
by the Ramirez report as showing growth in English reading skills. These students
showed as much growth in English reading skills as those students that received the all-
English instruction program in the early elementary grades (1992). One of the Ramirez
report ‘s findings is that blingualism and biliteracy of the late exit bilingual program
students did not impede English academic development.
Evaluative research on bilingual programs is still missing components that include
the sociocultural perspective (Snow, 2004). The research on second language acquisition
is leaving out information on the social context of bilingualism. Snow (2004) finds that
approaches of socioculturalists would describe language proficiency with communicative
effectiveness and social appropriateness. This would make the research on second
language acquisition more comprehensive.
Collier (1995) finds that children acquire second language acquisition through
components such as sociocultural processes, language development, academic
development, cognitive development, and the interdependence of these four components.
Collier (1995) writes that all aspects of a student’s life are essential to a student’s second
27

language acquisition. According to Collier’s study, the home, community, and school
life socially and culturally weigh equally with language development and academic
development. Language development involves the innate ability of the student, formal
teaching of language, and oral and writing development (Collier, 1995). Academic
development involves language arts, math, science, and social studies. Self esteem,
anxiety, the status of the student’s language, and prejudice and discrimination
experiences contribute to the acquisition of a second language (1995). This study also
notes that teachers often when teaching language forget to teach towards the cognitive
development of students. Collier (1995) also notes that cognitive development is taught
in students’ primary language. Therefore the primary language is essential to second
language acquisition.
Collier (1992) compares the Ramirez (1991) study, which is a long-term study on
academic achievement of language minority students, to various studies that examine
language-minority students’ academic achievement. Collier (1992) examines the long-
term studies on language minority students. Collier (1992) finds that the use of a
minority language for instructional purposes is a key variable in looking at different kinds
of programs in the education of language minority students.
English Learner Programs
There are some bilingual programs in Southern California that have been models
for other bilingual programs such Project M.O.R.E. schools. Project M.O.R.E. schools
describe their program as using the Natural Approach towards second language
acquisition. Krashen speaks about how a second language is acquired through visuals
28

and comprehensive input for Project M.O.R.E. staff in Project M.O.R.E. overview audio-
video tapes about the program. Project M.O.R.E. uses a matrix to move students through
different phases where the primary language, mainly Spanish, is used less and the second
language, English is used more towards the end of the transition. Project M.O.R.E.
describes its program as its goal to provide for a bilingual student and to include students’
culture as well as language to give them access to the second language.
Arce (2004) among other scholars writes about Latino bilingual programs and
how educational policies affect them. The different options for English Learners are
Two-Way Immersion programs where the goal is to become bilingual and biliterate
(Arce, 2004). Arce (2004) outlines the different programs available for English Learners,
specifically Latinos and their use of Spanish. The transitional bilingual programs are
usually implemented in early elementary grades because students are in transition from
receiving primary language instruction to an English immersion environment where the
primary language is used less. The maintenance or developmental bilingual program
provides more extensive primary language instruction. The developmental bilingual
program model’s goal is to develop both primary language literacy and English literacy
(Krashen, 2002; Collier,1995). Submersion programs are programs that have no primary
language support and no designed program for English Learners. Partial Immersion or
Sheltered Immersion Programs are those that provide sheltered English as a Second
Language, ESL, and support throughout the day. But primary language support is used to
clarify and sometimes it may be provided by a paraprofessional, a teacher’s aide, instead
of the teacher (Arce, 2004).
29

Conclusion
It is important to note that Proposition 227 did not target to change the instruction
of English monolingual students. Proposition 227 targeted to change the instruction of
English learners that were in bilingual programs. The passing of Proposition 227 affected
the way English learners were, and still are being taught by bilingual teachers in
California (Arellano-Houchin, Flamenco, Merlos, & Segura, 2001). When the
proposition passed, making English the official language taught in California schools,
there were changes throughout the state on how teachers were to teach English learners.
(Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, & Asato, 2000). In some cases, Proposition 227 alleviated
teachers that felt that teaching bilingual classes was extra work and in other cases
teachers felt frustrated with the abrupt change in their bilingual curriculum (Arellano-
Houchin, Flamenco, Merlos, & Segura, 2001). Proposition 227 caused tensions among
teachers at school sites by the resistance some teachers posed to teaching under the new
law (2001).

30

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this study was to find out more about teacher beliefs and attitudes
about bilingual education programs and English learning students. Proposition 227, a
California law aimed at reforming bilingual education in the state, passed in 1998. Some
of the teachers in California continued to teach in bilingual programs despite the passing
of this law that changed the manner in which English learners had been taught. For a law
like Proposition 227 to be an effectively implemented reform teacher buy-in is essential
(Revilla & Asato, 2002).
This study is a quantitative study about the beliefs, attitudes, and practices of
bilingual teachers from two southern California school districts. Participants of this study
were voluntary teachers who were part of a bilingual program prior to the passing and
implementation of Proposition 227. The data collected from the survey allows for
participants to express their beliefs about being bilingual teachers in a time when teaching
primary language to English learners may seem as servicing a deficit (Stritikus, 2001).
Participants
The participating teachers were from two different school districts in southern
California. These teachers came from schools that had a bilingual program before
Proposition 227 passed and some of these teachers currently teach in a bilingual program.
Of the 98 participating teachers, 56% percent were teaching before the passing of
Proposition 227 and 44% began their teaching careers after this law passed. Sixty-seven
percent of the teachers had bilingual credentials, 22% held non-bilingual credentials, and
31

11% had other types of credentials. Forty-seven percent of the participants taught in
bilingual programs and 53% taught in non-bilingual programs.
Research Setting
The research setting was at different schools and at a school district meeting
bilingual teachers from different schools attended. The surveys completed in 2002 were
collected from different school sites in a large school district in Los Angeles. The
surveys completed in 2009 were collected at another southern California school district
staff development meeting. In both cases the setting was familiar to the participants of
this study since they filled out the surveys in their work settings.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were
1. Do teachers in bilingual education programs have more positive attitudes
toward English learners and more positive beliefs about bilingual
education for English learners than do teachers in non-bilingual education
programs?
2. Are teachers in bilingual education programs more likely to consider
English learning students’ needs in their teaching practices than teachers
in non-bilingual education programs?
Instruments
A survey with statements about teacher beliefs and attitudes about bilingual
education and teaching English learners was used for this study. The survey used a 4
32

point Likert scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3= agree, 4 = strongly
agree. Teachers responded by checking off one of these responses for each of the 30
statements. There was a difference in the survey statements teachers in current bilingual
programs responded to. Out of the 30 questions, the last 3 statements were specifically
designed for current waiver bilingual program teachers. Waiver programs are those that
required the parents to sign a waiver for their children to be in bilingual education classes
and not in English immersion classes that only conduct lessons in English. The rest of
the participants only had to respond to the first 28 statements (see appendix A). The
survey used in this study was originally used by Shin and Krashen (1996) and then
modified by Gonzalez (2000) and Arengo-Yarnes (2005) for dissertations that examined
bilingual educators’ beliefs on bilingual education policies. The surveys for this study
were administered in two different years. One was given in 2005 and had the original 30
statements mentioned above. The second survey was given in 2009. This survey had 50
questions but this study only analyzed the responses for the 30 questions that remained
the same from the 2005 survey. The extra 20 questions were part of a pilot study that is
explained in detail below.
Some survey statements were not answered by all the participants so the N value
varies for the attitude, practice, and bilingual beliefs responses on the survey. The
bilingual program is a program that uses the students’ primary language as part of the
instructional program. The non-bilingual program is a program that does not use the
students’ primary language as part of the instructional program such as English
immersion programs. The questions in the survey were divided between attitude
33

questions, bilingual education questions, and practice questions. There were 17 questions
on attitude, 6 questions on bilingual education, and 12 questions that addressed teacher
practice.
In this study the statements in the survey were categorized into three groups.
These categories were attitudes, practices, and bilingual education beliefs. The attitudes
category represents the statements that address teacher attitudes towards teaching English
learners in bilingual education. The practices category stands for the teacher beliefs on
considering their English learning students’ primary language in their current teaching
practices. The bilingual category represents the teacher beliefs in bilingual education
pedagogy. Some of the statements address two different categories and they were
included in each category they addressed.
There were 17 statements on the survey that addressed attitudes. The survey
statements that represented attitudes were the following: 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 26. A sample statement for attitude is survey statement 1
which states the following: A student who is not proficient in English should be in a
classroom learning his/her first language (reading and writing as part of the school
curriculum). If the participant responded with a 3 which means that they agree with the
statement or a 4 which means that they strongly agree with this statement then it prove
that the participant had a more positive attitude about teaching English learners in a
bilingual program. A response of a 2 which means disagree or a 1 which stands for
strongly disagree indicates the participant had a less positive attitude towards teaching
English learners in a bilingual program. Thus being more receptive to the change of
34

Proposition 227 where English learners are being taught in English only. According to
the self-concept interpretation of cognitive dissonance theory this would mean that the
teacher beliefs on this topic would be weak compared to those teachers that had strong
beliefs about bilingual education.
There were 12 statements that pertained to teachers taking into consideration their
English learning students’ primary language into their current teaching practices. The
survey statements that addressed teacher practices were the following: 2, 3, 10, 13, 15,
16, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 30. A sample statement of teaching practices is statement 3
which states the following: Whenever possible, I modify or add lessons or materials that
ensure that the child’s native culture is acknowledged and valued. The response of a 3 or
a 4 on the Likert scale survey yields the same results of positive teacher beliefs that the
response for the attitude statements would provide. The response of a 1 or a 2 means a
less positive belief in these statements as well.
There were 6 statements that specifically addressed bilingual education’s
importance in education. The following statements on the survey addressed this issue: 2,
3, 10, 13, 24, and 27. A sample statement about the belief in the importance of bilingual
education in English learners’ education is statement 2 which states the following: My
preference would be to teach English language learners in their primary language.
Positive responses of a 3 or a 4 would indicate that those particular teachers with these
responses have strong beliefs about bilingual education and that dissonance exists.

35

Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted with three teachers for the 2009 survey. These three
teachers read the survey statements and responded to them. This was done to check for
clarity of statements on the survey. The statements on the 2009 survey were also
presented in a focus group of five teachers. The survey of 2009 had 20 more statements
than the survey in 2005. These statements emerged from the literature on teacher beliefs
and practices and critical race theory research (see Table 1). These 20 statements were
part of this pilot study to see the type of beliefs teachers had about the politics behind
Proposition 227. Out of the 98 teachers that participated in this study 38 teachers
responded to this 2009 survey. The 2009 survey had a total of 50 statements. The total
number of participants in the 2009 survey, however, was a small number to analyze and
come to a conclusion about the teacher beliefs on the politics of Proposition 227.
Therefore, the data analysis conducted for this study only included the original survey
statements from the 2005 survey.

36

Table 1
Questions for Pilot Study
When Proposition 227 passed what were
your reactions?
(Palmer &Garcia, 2000)
What did your school and district do to
implement Proposition 227? And what did
you do?
(Evans and Hornberger, 2005)
(Lapayese)
What type of support or training did you
receive to adjust to the new law? Was it
useful?
(Evans and Hornberger, 2005)
What are the positive and negative results
of the implementation of Proposition 227?
(Evans & Hornberger, 2005)
How do you manage to teach bilingual
education and still work under district
mandates that require assessments?
(Arce, 2004)

37

Table 2
Themes for Pilot Study Survey Statements
Changes in English Learner instruction in
district and/or school Post Proposition 227
(Evans, B.V. & Hornberger, N. H., 2004).
(Arellano-Houchin, Flamenco, Merlos, &
Segura, 2001).
Resistance to comply with Proposition
227 by teachers or school community
because of commitment to bilingual
education vs. embracing new program
(Arce, 2004)
(Agee, 2004).
(McLaren & Baltodano, 2000).
Top-Down Mandates vs. theory learned in
teacher education and/or work experience
(Stritikus, 2003).
(Balderrama, 2001).
Proposition 227 and Racism (Torrez, 2001). (Decuir & Dixson, 2004).
(Solorzano & Yosso, 2002).
Teaching Today: Where does the power
lie? With teachers or policy makers? How
much power do teachers in Eastman
Project M.O.R.E. school perceive they
have when in comes to curriculum?
(MacGillivray, Ardell, Curwen, & Palma,
2004). (Arce, 2004)
Ladson-Billings (1998)

38

Data Collection
The participants of this study were teachers that were either teaching in bilingual
programs prior to the passing and implementation of Proposition 227 or non-bilingual
programs. Some of the participants had known no other experience but teaching under
Proposition 227’s implementation since they taught after 1998. The participants received
a 5-10 minute presentation explaining the purpose of this study and to talk about the
informed consent as it was distributed. The survey for teacher beliefs was distributed
after the presentation. The teachers responded to the survey and returned the completed
surveys within 15 minutes to 20 minutes. For confidentiality issues, teachers handed the
surveys directly to the researcher.
Data Analysis
This study was analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-tests to determine the
relationship between bilingual teacher beliefs about Proposition 227 and the type of
bilingual program their schools implement in addition to the attitudes teachers’ held
about English learners. This study also examined teacher beliefs about bilingual
education for teaching English learners. Schools in this study have bilingual programs
and non-bilingual programs. The bilingual programs range from the original model
bilingual program and the others have different programs that address the needs of their
English learning students. The survey in this study asked for the background information
about teaching experience and also the type(s) of program(s) teachers teach to their
students currently and in the past. The type of teacher credential these teachers held was
also a question in the survey.
39

The independent variable was the type of teacher answering the survey. These
two kinds of teachers were categorized as either teaching in bilingual programs or non-
bilingual programs. The data on teachers was separated into two groups: teachers in
current bilingual programs and teachers in non-bilingual programs. The dependent
variables were the attitudes towards teaching English learners, beliefs in their
consideration of the use of their students’ primary language in their teaching practices,
and their beliefs on bilingual education ideology.

40

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This study surveyed teachers of English learners in southern California about their
beliefs and teaching practices in a time where Proposition 227 has been implemented for
11 years after its passing by California voters. English learners are students that are in
the process of learning English. Ninety-eight teachers teaching in bilingual and non-
bilingual programs were surveyed. This qualitative study addressed the following
research questions:
1. Do teachers in bilingual education programs have more positive attitudes
toward English learners and more positive beliefs about bilingual
education for English learners than do teachers in non-bilingual education
programs?
2. Are teachers in bilingual education programs more likely to consider
English learning students’ needs in their teaching practices than teachers
in non-bilingual education programs?
The teachers in this study were from different schools in two school districts in
California. The survey used in this study has been modified from previous studies
conducted by Shin and Krashen (1996). A dissertation by Arengo-Yarnes (2005) also
used this survey to show the strength of teacher beliefs about teaching English learners
after Proposition 227 had passed.

41

Descriptive Analysis
There were 98 teachers in the study and all of them taught at elementary schools.
The range of grades was from Pre-Kindergarten through sixth grade. The number of
teachers teaching in Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten was 17. There were 30 teachers
teaching First and Second grade. Twenty-three teachers taught Third and Fourth grade.
Thirteen teachers were teaching Fifth grade and 7 teachers in Sixth grade. There were
also 8 teachers who taught multiple grades.
The survey data also showed that of the 98 teachers, 55 teachers taught before
Proposition 227 passed in 1998. These 55 teachers have knowledge of the change in
curriculum for English learners, if there was any change at their school sites, after the
passing of Proposition 227. Forty-three teachers represent teachers that began their
teaching career in an educational environment where Proposition 227 had been
implemented. The teachers that taught prior to Proposition 227 in 1998 represent the
teachers that experienced the transition from teaching English learners in a time when
there was an option for teachers to use the students’ primary language to teach English.
There were 65 teachers with a bilingual credential, a BCLAD, or the equivalent.
There were 21 teachers with a CLAD credential, a credential that allows teachers to teach
English learners through second language learning strategies but it does not indicate that
the teacher holding this credential has the fluency in the second language of the student.
The other 11 teachers held another type of credential. The data also showed that 48
teachers taught in bilingual programs before Proposition 227 passed and was
implemented in 1998. There were 21 teachers who taught in non-bilingual programs
42

before Proposition 227. The rest of the teachers did not respond which adds up to 69
responses. Some of the teachers as previously mentioned in this chapter were not
teaching before 1998 so they could not respond to this question since they had not taught
in any program before 1998. Forty-five teachers reported teaching in bilingual programs
at the time they took the survey, while 51 teachers reported teaching in a non-bilingual
program at the time they answered the survey.
Inferential statistics were conducted using 98 surveys. The survey included 17
questions related to teachers’ attitudes toward English learners. Seventy-one participants
responded to the survey. Twenty-eight of the respondents were teaching English learners
in bilingual programs. The responses ranged from 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
agree, to 4 = strongly agree. For this study responses with a 3 or a 4 indicate a positive
attitude towards English learners while a 1 or a 2 indicate a negative attitude with the
highest possible score being 68 points and the lowest possible score being 17 points. The
average attitude score for the bilingual program teachers was 47.7, while the average
score for teachers in non-bilingual education programs was 45.86. The average means
showed that teachers in bilingual programs had more positive attitudes towards English
learners than their counterparts in non-bilingual programs.
Inferential statistics also showed data about teachers who take into consideration
their students’ language abilities in their teaching practices. The survey included 12
questions related to teacher practices for English learners. Forty-one participants
responded to the survey. Twenty-three of the respondents were teaching in bilingual
programs while the rest were teaching in non-bilingual programs. The responses ranged
43

from 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, and 3 = agree, to 4= strongly agree. For this
study responses with a 3 or a 4 indicated a positive response towards considering student
language needs in teaching practices while a 1 or a 2 indicated a negative response with
the highest possible score being 48 points and the lowest possible score being 12 points.
The average teaching practices score for the bilingual program teachers was 32.78 while
the average score for teachers in non-bilingual programs was 29.33. The average means
showed teachers in bilingual programs had higher positive responses in considering their
students’ primary language in teaching practices than did teachers in non-bilingual
programs.
Inferential statistics data also demonstrated the beliefs teachers have about
bilingual education for English learners. The survey included 6 questions related to
teachers’ beliefs about bilingual education for English learners. Seventy-eight
participants responded to the survey. Twenty-nine of the respondents were teaching in
English learners in bilingual programs while the rest were teaching in non-bilingual
programs. The responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, to 4
= strongly agree. For this study responses with a 3 or a 4 indicated a positive belief
towards bilingual education for English learners while a 1 or a 2 indicated a negative
belief with the highest score possible being 24 points and the lowest score possible being
6 points. The average belief score for bilingual education program teachers was 20.97,
while the average score for teachers in non-bilingual programs was 17.71. The average
means showed that teachers in bilingual programs had higher positive responses than
those teachers in non-bilingual programs about bilingual education for English learners.
44

Table 3
Average Means for Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices of Teachers in Bilingual and Non-
Bilingual Programs

Variables Respondents Average Means Standard Deviation

Attitude Bilingual 28 47.75 1.80
Non-Bilingual 43 45.86 5.70
Practice Bilingual 23 32.78 3.25
Non-Bilingual 18 29.33 4.49
Bilingual Bilingual 29 20.97 2.93
Non-Bilingual 49 17.71 2.87

T-test
The independent samples t test analysis indicated that for attitude statements, the
means for teachers teaching in bilingual and non-bilingual programs did not differ
significantly, p = .162. Levene’s test for equality of variances indicated that variances
for teachers teaching in bilingual programs and teachers teaching in non-bilingual
programs did not differ significantly from each other F(.276), p = .601. Therefore equal
variances were assumed.
For questions on practices, Levene’s test for equality of variances indicated that
the variances for teachers in bilingual programs and teachers teaching in non-bilingual
programs did not differ significantly from each other, F(2.395), p =.130. This showed
45

that equal variances were assumed. Also, Levene’s test for equality of variances showed
there was no significant difference in variances for teachers teaching in bilingual
programs and non-bilingual programs when they responded to belief statements about
bilingual education for English learners, F(.764) p = .385. Therefore equal variances
were assumed. The t test for equality of means indicated that for questions on attitudes
for teaching English learners there was no significant difference between the teachers in
bilingual education programs and those teachers in non-bilingual programs. For
questions about teacher practices when teaching English learners there was a significant
difference between teachers in bilingual programs and teachers in non-bilingual
programs, t(39) = 2.857, p = .007. For statements on beliefs about bilingual education
for English learners there was a significant difference between teachers teaching in
bilingual programs and teachers teaching in non-bilingual programs, t(76) = 4.793, p
.000.

46

Table 4
t-tests for Equality of Means for Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices of Teachers in Bilingual
and Non-Bilingual Programs

t-test for Equality of Means
Mean Std. Error
Variables t df Sig.(2-tailed) Difference Difference

Attitude
Equal Variances Assumed 1.415 69 .162 1.88953 1.33534
Equal Variances Not Assumed 1.444 61.715 .154 1.88953 1.30823
Practice
Equal Variances Assumed 2.857 39 .007 3.44928 1.20721
Equal Variance Not Assumed 2.748 29.914 .010 3.44928 1.25538
Bilingual
Equal Variances Assumed 4.793 76 .000 3.25123 0.67827
Equal Variances Not Assumed 4.767 57.911 .000 3.25123 0.68200
Note: Std. Error Difference = Standard Error Difference, Sig. = Significance. p < .001.
Results by Research Questions
Research Question 1 is: Do teachers in bilingual education programs have
more positive attitudes toward English learners and more positive beliefs of bilingual
education for English learners than do teachers in non-bilingual education programs? The
results of this study showed that regardless of whether teachers were teaching in a
bilingual program or a non-bilingual program, teachers’ attitudes towards English
47

learners were not significantly different. However the results also showed that there was
a significant difference between teachers in bilingual programs and non-bilingual
programs when they responded to statements related to their beliefs about bilingual
education for their English learning students. T-test results showed that there was no
significant difference in attitudes between teachers who teach in bilingual education
programs (M = 47.75, SD = 5.18) and teachers who teach in a non-bilingual program
(M= 45.86, SD = 5.70), t(69) = 1.415, p = .162. The t-test results also showed that
teachers who teach in bilingual programs, (M= 20.97, SD = 2.93) differed significantly
from teachers who teach in non-bilingual programs in terms of their beliefs about
bilingual education for English learners, (M= 17.71, SD = 2.87), t(76) = 4.793, p = .000.
These findings indicate that both teachers in bilingual education programs and those who
are not in bilingual education programs in general have positive attitudes toward English
learners, with neither group having a more positive attitude than the other. On the other
hand, in terms of teachers’ beliefs about bilingual education for English learners, the
findings indicate that teachers in bilingual programs have significantly more positive
beliefs than those teachers in non-bilingual programs.
Research Question 2 is: Are teachers in bilingual programs more likely to
consider English learning students’ needs in their teaching practices than teachers in non-
bilingual education programs? The results of the t-tests showed that there is a significant
difference between teachers in bilingual (M =32.78, SD = 3.25) and non-bilingual
programs (M = 29.33, SD = 4.49), in their consideration of their English language
students’ needs in their teaching practices, t(39) = 2.857, p = .007. These findings
48

indicate that indeed teachers in bilingual education programs are more likely to consider
their English language learning students’ needs in their teaching practices than teachers in
non-bilingual education programs.
These results demonstrated that in general, teachers in bilingual education
programs and teachers in non-bilingual programs have a neither more or less positive
attitude towards English learning students. The data also showed that teachers teaching
in bilingual education programs had more positive beliefs about bilingual education for
their English learning students than teachers in non-bilingual education programs. This
study also found that teachers teaching in bilingual education programs were more likely
to consider their English learners’ language needs in their teaching practices than teachers
in non-bilingual programs.

49

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Review of Problem Statement
This study examined the beliefs and attitudes teachers had about teaching English
learners and bilingual education 11 years after the passing of Proposition227 in
California. Teachers that were teaching in bilingual programs before Proposition 227
passed in 1998 had to adjust to a new way of teaching English learners. Teachers who
began their teaching careers after Proposition 227 came into a climate of English
immersion for English learners regardless of their bilingual or non-bilingual credentials.
Proposition 227 was a reform that caused changes in curriculum and teachers’
interpretation of how the law should be implemented had different effects in different
schools (Revilla & Asato, 2002). This posed a problem for California’s educational
system for many reasons, but specifically in providing a quality education for English
learning students.
The problem for teachers, teaching prior to the passing of Proposition 227,was
that they were placed in a position where they needed to decide to follow bilingual
education pedagogy or to comply with the law and possibly omit primary language
altogether from their instruction (Revilla & Asato, 2002). Some teachers may have
decided to resist to the change and allowed for more flexibility in implementing
Proposition 227 (Revilla & Asato). The problem for teachers teaching after Proposition
227 passed, was that regardless of the type of credential they held, English immersion
curriculum was to be taught in the majority of schools. These teachers also had to make
choices about where they wanted to teach if they wanted to teach in a bilingual program.
50

This inconsistency in implementing Proposition 227 affected teachers and students as
well as all the constituents of California. McLaren and Baltodano (2000) find that there
is a responsibility from teachers, educators, community members, and others to influence
the way children are being taught in schools.
This study used a self-concept interpretation of cognitive dissonance theory, a
theory about how people’s behavior or belief might change when there is dissonance
between their beliefs and their behavior to eliminate the dissonance they experience.
This theory helps explain teacher beliefs and teacher decision making in regards to
classroom practices when teaching English learners, especially in a post Proposition 227
era. This study aimed to find whether there is a difference between the attitudes and
beliefs of teachers currently teaching in bilingual programs and those teachers currently
teaching in non-bilingual programs. Questions in the research about teacher attitudes
towards teaching English learners, teaching practices, and bilingual education ideology
are addressed in this study.
The research questions to address this study’s problem were:
1. Do teachers in bilingual education programs have more positive attitudes
toward English learners and more positive beliefs about bilingual
education for English learners than do teachers in non-bilingual education
programs?
51

2. Are teachers in bilingual education programs more likely to consider
English learning students’ needs in their teaching practices than teachers
in non-bilingual education programs?
Summary of Findings
There are two different findings for research question 1 which asks the following:
Do teachers in bilingual education programs have more positive attitudes toward English
learners and more positive beliefs about bilingual education for English learners than do
teachers in non-bilingual education programs? The results of this study showed that while
there was no significant difference between teachers in bilingual and non-bilingual
programs in their attitude towards teaching English learners, there was a significant
difference between these two groups of teachers in their beliefs about the importance of
bilingual education for English learners. Teachers in bilingual programs had more
positive beliefs than did teachers teaching in non-bilingual programs about the
importance of bilingual education for their English learning students. Inferential statistics
showed higher average means for responses on statements about bilingual education
beliefs from teachers teaching in bilingual programs.
The predictions for Research Question 1 were that teachers in bilingual education
programs would have more positive attitudes towards English learners than would
teachers in non-bilingual programs. Gandara (2002) finds that English learners in
California are the students most likely taught by teachers with the least credentials.
Therefore, sometimes there is a void in the knowledge acquired from a bilingual
credential program. As a result English learners are not receiving the same educational
52

access that those children who are not English learners have access to. Research
conducted by Shin and Krashen (1996) found that teachers with bilingual education
training have also been found to have stronger beliefs in bilingual education. The
research on teacher beliefs and attitudes helped formulate the prediction that teachers in
bilingual programs would have more positive attitudes and beliefs than those teachers in
non-bilingual programs.
The results of the study for Research Question 1 demonstrate that teachers have
similar attitudes towards their English learning students regardless of the program they
teach. Teachers that were surveyed in this study were from schools that have a
consistent population of English learners year after year. These teachers teach the same
kinds of students but simply happen to teach either a bilingual or non-bilingual
curriculum. The majority of the teachers in this study had a certified credential by the
state of California. Hence, the research on English learners being taught by uncertified
teachers does not apply in this study since all the teachers surveyed had some type of
certified teaching credential. The difference between these teachers was that some had a
bilingual credential and others had a credential without a bilingual component. Thus, this
study found that teachers in bilingual programs have neither more nor less positive
attitudes about English learners than teachers in non-bilingual programs.
For the second part of Research Question 1, which refers to teacher beliefs in the
importance of bilingual education for English learners, the study found results that agree
with bilingual teacher beliefs research (Shin & Krashen, 1996). Teachers in bilingual
53

education programs had more positive beliefs than teachers in non-bilingual programs
about bilingual education as being effective for their English learners. These findings
show that teachers in bilingual programs who have more knowledge about bilingual
education have more positive beliefs about the program they teach English learners. This
is consistent with the teacher belief research that states that bilingual teachers have more
positive beliefs since their credential programs presented them with the methodology and
content of bilingual programs (Shin & Krashen, 1996).
Research Question 2 asked: Are teachers in bilingual education programs more
likely to consider English learning students’ needs in their teaching practices than
teachers in non-bilingual education programs? The findings show that teachers in
bilingual programs are more likely to consider their English learning students’ needs in
their teaching practices than teachers in non-bilingual programs. These findings are
consistent with the bilingual teacher beliefs research that has found that bilingual teachers
have more positive beliefs about bilingual education’s use of primary language to teach
English learners (Shin & Krashen, 1996; Revilla & Asato, 2002; Arengo-Yarnes, 2005).
According to cognitive dissonance theory, these findings show that teachers in bilingual
education programs experience less dissonance. The research shows that teachers in
bilingual education programs are teaching in programs that consider English learning
students’ needs (Krashen, 1991; Cummins, 1992; Collier, 1995). Therefore, the teaching
practices of these teachers match their knowledge on how to teach English learners.
According to cognitive dissonance theory, teachers in non-bilingual programs
are more likely to experience dissonance when it comes to their teaching practices with
54

English learners. These teachers in non-bilingual programs are teaching a curriculum that
does not focus on the primary language needs of the students they teach so they may be
more likely to experience dissonance. However, presumably, these teachers are teaching
in a non-bilingual program that matches their beliefs about their English learning students
not needing bilingual education and this is how they may diminish their dissonance
(Aronson, 1999). In addition, according to the self-revision cognitive dissonance theory
these teachers as well as the teachers in non-bilingual programs teach in programs that
match their beliefs and their knowledge about teaching English learners (Aronson, 1999;
Arengo-Yarnes, 2005).
The findings show that teachers in bilingual education programs and non-
bilingual education programs reduce their overall dissonance with the law of Proposition
227 by teaching in schools with programs that are consistent with their beliefs about
second language acquisition and English learners. However, teachers in bilingual
education programs did have higher positive beliefs about bilingual education for their
students and they also considered their students’ language needs more in their teaching
practices. It is more likely that teachers in bilingual education programs experience less
dissonance than teachers in non-bilingual programs because they teach the curriculum
that addresses their students’ primary language (Krashen, 1991; Cummins 1992; Collier,
1995).

55

Implications for Research
This study’s findings add to the research of the impact of Proposition 227 on
teachers and students (Revilla & Asato,2002; Arengo-Yarnes, 2005). This study focused
on teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and practices after 11 years of English immersion
implementation throughout the state of California. The teachers that were surveyed in
this study taught in bilingual programs because their schools continued to provide this
option for English learners. The findings of this study provide further documentation on
the positive beliefs teachers in bilingual education programs have about the importance of
bilingual education for English learners, even under Proposition 227’s law of English
immersion. These findings also include documentation about teachers in bilingual
education programs considering their students’ primary language needs in their teaching
practices more so than teachers in non-bilingual programs. The results of this study
provides more proof that teachers who teach in bilingual education programs believe in
the importance of bilingual education for English learners even though the majority of
California schools implement a non-bilingual program.
Implications for Practice
This study’s findings have relevance to current teaching strategies of English
learners. Teachers are the closest ones to the students and knowing more about their
attitudes and beliefs can be beneficial to a more effective implementation of educational
policies. Teachers’ perspectives have been found to be the key in implementing school
reforms (Alamillo &Viramontes, 2000). Any organization would benefit from knowing
their employees well, especially an organization such as a school or school district that
56

has college educated employees. Taking into account teacher beliefs would benefit
schools and school districts in implementing programs that would be beneficial to their
students. This study and the literature show that beliefs do influence teaching practices.
MacGillavray, Ardell, Curwen, and Palma (2004) found that top-down reforms have
affected teachers’ teaching practices to the extent that it is like teachers have been
colonized by a dominant power. To take into consideration teachers’ ideas would help
construct an effective professional development program that shares with them
information about the curriculum they are to teach. It is in the interest of the policy
makers to first gather teacher input to make policies that teachers will understand and
implement effectively since they will have ownership over these policies. If this happens
teachers’ professional expertise would be taken into account and the policies would be
more clearly understood by those who are to implement them, teachers.
Limitations
A limitation in this study was that there were 98 participants but not all responded
to all the questions on the teacher beliefs survey. Another limitation was that part of the
data for this study was collected in an earlier study and the other part was collected at a
later time. Also because of the small number of participants who taught before
Proposition 227 was implemented no comparison could be made between those teachers
who taught before Proposition 227 was implemented and those who started teaching
after. Furthermore, because this was a quantitative study it did not allow for more in-
depth study of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. Some teachers in the study did write in
comments on the last page of their surveys and next to the survey items indicating their
57

reasoning for choosing such a response. A qualitative study on this topic may be
beneficial for further study.
Recommendations for Future Study
Recommendations for future study are to revisit the second language acquisition
research along with teacher beliefs and explore through a qualitative study teacher beliefs
about Proposition 227 and other educational policies. A large sample of teachers would
be recommended if the teacher beliefs survey in this study is administered through a
quantitative study. The critical race theory questions on the survey could be considered if
the study sample is large and there could be further analysis about teacher beliefs and
Proposition 227. This study’s findings on teacher beliefs on teaching in the aftermath of
Proposition 227 could be further investigated by exploring how other policies affect
current teaching practices. Inquiring about teacher beliefs using a critical race theory
framework would be an insightful study into the teaching profession’s belief in
educational policies. A qualitative study would investigate in more depth the reasoning
behind the responses in the survey conducted in this study.
Several dedicated teachers who were participants in this survey and those who
were in the pilot study, shared that they appreciated being asked their expert opinion on
teaching English learners. Some teachers even wrote extra notes on the surveys to
express the reasons behind their responses to the questions. This shows that Proposition
227 and teaching English learners is a subject still of interest to teachers. A study using
cognitive dissonance theory and teacher beliefs on bilingual education in the post
Proposition 227 era would further increase the body of knowledge on how teachers react
58

to top-down reforms. The stress of implementing a new practice in the classroom may
have caused stress or discomfort in some teachers. To reduce dissonance, teachers could
make adjustments to their belief systems or pursue more information to understand the
laws they are implementing in the classroom. A study with a cognitive dissonance theory
would provide more data on teachers’ reactions to the laws they are expected to enforce.

59

EPILOGUE
This study about teacher beliefs on the topic of bilingual education for English
learners has brought to light that teachers have not been heard. Conducting this study
allowed me to meet teachers of English learners in this post Proposition 227 era. When
surveying teachers, some teachers shared with me that they were glad that someone was
asking them for their professional opinion. Some seemed surprised with themselves that
they had enjoyed teaching bilingual education. Other teachers felt the need to personally
speak to me after turning in their surveys about their reasoning for their responses. And a
couple decided to suggest how I should ask my survey statements next time. As a scholar
and a fellow teacher, I completely appreciated these reactions. As an educator, this
experience expanded my knowledge on teacher beliefs and confirmed to me why they are
of importance to all of us.
Teachers had opinions about bilingual education and wanted someone to listen. I
am glad my study could contribute to the research about teachers’ beliefs on the topic of
bilingual education for English learning students. I remain positive that researchers will
not be the only ones that listen to teachers’ beliefs but also school districts and policy
makers as well, for the sake of all our young scholars.

60

REFERENCES
Achinstein, B. (2002, April). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher
collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 421-455.
Agee, J. (2004, April). Negotiating a teaching identity: An African American
teacher’s struggle to test in test driven contexts. Teachers College Record, 106
(4), 747-774.
Alamillo, L. & Viramontes, C. (2000, Spring &Winter). Reflections from the
classroom: Teacher perspectives on the Implementation of Proposition 227.
Bilingual Research Journal, 24 (1 &2), 1-11.
Arce, J. (2004, March-April). Latino bilingual teachers: The struggle to sustain an
emancipatory pedagogy in public schools. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 17 (2), 227-246.
Arellano-Houchin, A., Flamenco, C., Merlos, M. M., & Segura, M. (2001). Has
California’s passage of proposition 227 made a difference in the way we teach.
The Urban Review, 33 (3), 221-235.
Arengo-Yarnes, L. (2005). Impact of Proposition 227 on bilingual teachers’ beliefs and
practices (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 2005).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 127.
Aronson, E. (1999). Dissonance, hypocrisy, and the self-concept. In E. Harmon-Jones
& J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social
Psychology (pp. 103-126). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Balderrama, M.V. (2001). The mis (preparation) of teachers in the Proposition 227
era: Humanizing teacher roles and their practice. The Urban Review, 33 (3), 255-
267.
Burke, F. (1981, March). Bilingualism /Biculturalism in American education: An
adventure in wonderland. American Academy of Political and Social Science,
457, 164-177.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2007). Glossary of credential
terms. Sacramento: Author. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/glossary/glossary.html

61

California Department of Education. (2006) Education Code 30-30.5. Retrieved
June 25, 2006, from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section
=edc&group=00001-01000&file=30-30.5
Callaghan, A., Unz, R., & Vega, F. (1998). English language in public schools.
Initiative Statute. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from
http://primary98.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/227yesarg.htm
Collier, V. P. (1987-1988). The effect of age on acquisition of a second language
for school. [Electronic version]. The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/classics/focus/02aage.htm
Collier, V.P. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. The National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/04.htm
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom
(5
th
ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting
educational success for language minority students. Schooling and Language
Minority Students. Sacramento: California Department of Education, 3-49.

Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingual education and English Immersion: The Ramirez report
in Theoretical Perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 91-104.
Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingualism and second language learning. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 13, 50-75.
DeCuir, J. T. & Dixson, A. D. (2004, June & July). “So when it comes out, they aren’t
surprised that it is there: Using Critical Race Theory as a tool of analysis of
race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33 (5), 26-31.
De Mejia, A. (2002). Power, prestige, and bilingualism: international perspectives on
elite bilingual education. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Evans, B. A. & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Repealing and
unpeeling federal language education policy in the United States. Language
Policy, 4, 87-106.
Festinger, L. (1957). Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
62

Gandara, P. & Rumberger, R.W. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How
does policy structure opportunity? The voice of scholarship in education.
Teachers College Record,3, 750-782.
Gonzales, M. (2000). Teachers beliefs, attitudes and knowledge and its effects on
instruction for English language learners in transition. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International,
63, 469.
Gutierrez, K.D., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Asato, J. (2000). English for the children:
The new literacy of the old world order, language policy, and educational
reform. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 87-112.
Harmon-Jones, E. & J. Mills. (1999). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory
And an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones &
J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social
psychology (pp. 3-21). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Krashen, S.D. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. In J.E. Alatis (Ed.),
Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The state of the art (pp.409-431).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S.D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and applications. New York:
Pergamon Institute of English.
Krashen, S. D. (2002). Developing academic language: Early L1 reading and later L2
reading. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 155 & 156, 143-151.
Krashen, S. D. (2002). The comprehension hypothesis and its rivals. In Selected
Papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching/Fourth
Pan-Asian Conference. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a
nice field like education? Qualitative Studies in Education, 11 (1), 7-24.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A
critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211-247.
Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate, W. F. (1995, Fall). Toward a Critical Race Theory of
Education.Teacher College Record, 97 (1), 47-68.
Lapayese, Y. V. (2005) Latina/o teacher insurgency and No Child Left Behind: The
politics of resistance to English-Only Policies in Urban School Classrooms.
[Electronic version]. Penn GSE Perspectives in Urban Education, 3 (3), 1-12.
63

MacGillivray, L., Ardell, A.L., Curwen, M.S., & Palma, J. (2004, June). Colonized
teachers: Examining the implementation of a scripted reading program.
Teaching Education, 15 (2), 131-144.
Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2000). Factors influencing implementation of mandated policy
Change: Proposition 227 in seven northern California school districts. Bilingual
Research Journal, 24, 1-20.
McLaren, P. & Baltodano, M. P. (2000). The Future of Teacher Education and the
Politics of Resistance. Teaching Education, 11(2), 47-60.
Palmer, D. K. & Garcia, E. E. (2000, Winter & Spring). Voices from the field:
Bilingual educators speak candidly about Proposition 227. Bilingual Research
Journal, 24 (1&2), 1-10.
Peregoy, S . F. & Boyle, O. F. (2001). Reading, writing, and learning in E.S.L.: A
resource book for K-12 teachers (3
rd
ed.). New York: Longman.
Ramos, F. (2001). Teachers’ opinions about the theoretical and practical aspects of the
use of native language instruction for language minority students: A cross-
sectional study. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 357-374.
Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Executive summary of the final
structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional
bilingual education programs for language-minority children (Contact No. 300-
87-0156). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 15,
2008, from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/mispubs/ramirez/longitudinal.htm
Richardson, V. (1996). The role the attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.
Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (2
nd
ed.). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
Revilla, A.T. & Asato, J. (2002). The implementation of Proposition 227 in California
schools: A critical analysis of the effect on teacher beliefs and California
practices. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 108-118.
Rossell, C. & Ross, J. M. (1986). The social science evidence on bilingual education.
Journal of Law and Education, 15, 385-419.
Sanchez, G. I. (1997). History, Culture, and Education. In A. Darder, R. D. Torres,
& H. Gutierrez (Eds.), Latinos and Education (118-134). New York, NY:
Routledge.

64

Schirling, E., Contreras, F., & Ayala, C. (2000, Winter & Spring). Proposition 227:
tales from the schoolhouse. Bilingual Research Journal, 24 (1&2), 1-14.
Shin, F.H., & Krashen, S. (1996). Teacher attitudes toward the principles of bilingual
education and toward students’ participation in bilingual programs: Same or
different? Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 45-53.
Silin, J. G. & Schwartz, F. (2003). Staying close to the Teacher. Teachers College
Record, 105 (8), 1586-1605.
Snow, C. (2004). The four spokes of the second language learning wheel. In T. Santa
Ana (Ed.), Tongue-Tied: The lives of multilingual children in public education
(214-221). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Solorzano, D.G. (1998). Critical race theory , race and gender microaggressions, and
the experience of Chicana and Chicano scholars. Qualitative Studies in
Education, 11 (1), 121-136.
Solorzano, D.G. & Yosso, T.J. (2002). A Critical Race Counterstory of Race, Racism,
and Affirmative Action. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35 (2), 155-168.
Stritikus, T. (2001). From personal to political: Proposition 227, literacy instruction,
and the individual qualities of teachers. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualis, 14, 291-309.
Stritikus, T. (2002). Immigrant children and the politics of English-only: Views from
the classroom. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC.
Stritikus, T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: The case
of a teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education, 2 (1), 29-52.
Taylor, B. (1996). Education and the law: A dictionary. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Torrez, N. M. (2001). Incoherent English immersion and California Proposition 227.
The Urban Review, 33 (3), 207-220.
Ulanoff, S. H. & Vega-Castaneda, L. (n.d.) The sociopolitical context of bilingual
instruction in 21
st
century California: Examining the impact of Proposition 227.
Los Angeles, CA: California State University. Charter College of Education.

65

APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Beliefs and Practices of Bilingual Teachers on the Impact of Proposition 227
You are being asked to participate in a research study that would benefit from your
expertise as an educator. Karen Orellana, EdD candidate, and Reynaldo Baca, PhD.,
from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California is
conducting this study. The results of this study will contribute to Karen Orellana’s
dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a
teacher in a school identified as having a bilingual program prior to Proposition 227.
Four other schools with the same kind of bilingual program history will be part of this
study. There will be about a total of 150 teachers asked to participate from the schools in
this study. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in this research study because we are studying the impact
of mandated educational policies on teacher beliefs and practices, particularly when those
policies contradict previously held teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices. In this
case, we are specifically looking at your beliefs about bilingual education policy and
practice.
Your completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview
questions will constitute consent to participate in this research project.

PROCEDURES
You will be asked to answer either 47 or 50 survey questions. If you are in a school with
a bilingual (waiver) program, you will be asked to answer 50 questions. The survey will
take approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete. It is a pencil/pen-and-paper survey.
The first part of the survey asks you questions about your employment and educational
history. The second part of the survey asks you to read a statement and decide whether
you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with that statement. There are
no wrong answers. Two sample statements you will be asked to read are: (1) Students’
development of literacy in their first language will facilitate the development of reading
66

and writing in English, and (2) I allow English language learners the opportunity to use
their primary language in classroom writing lessons.
There are three opportunities to return your completed survey: (1) you may fill the
survey out immediately and place it in Karen Orellana’s box in the staff meeting room to
be picked up 30 minutes following the study presentation; (2) you may return the
completed survey to Karen Orellana’s box (location to be described at meeting); or mail
the completed survey to Karen Orellana in a provided self-addressed stamped envelope.
You will not be video-taped or audio-taped.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
A potential risk is the breach of confidentiality. We have protected your confidentiality
by not asking you your name, your gender, or where you live. The only other foreseeable
inconvenience will be the time that it will take you to complete the survey.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation will provide us with the opportunity to better understand the teacher’s
perspective in the study of policy implementation and teacher beliefs. Research has
shown that teachers have an instrumental role in policymaking because they interpret,
decide, and practice the curriculum according to their beliefs. Your responses to this
study will enable us to reveal to policymakers, researchers, and educators what teachers
believe about and do with the policies that are handed to them. Your responses in this
study are particularly important because they will illustrate how you as a teacher interpret
and reconcile policies if/when they contradict previously held beliefs.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There will be no financial compensation for participation in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law. The school principal will not know who has or has not participated in
this research study. Access to any information collected from you will be restricted to the
two investigators, Karen Orellana and Dr. Reynaldo Baca, unless you indicate otherwise
in writing. All data we collect as part of this study will remain in a secure file in the
home of the co-principal investigator, Karen Orellana, and will be kept indefinitely.
67

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that will reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator, Karen Orellana, may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Karen Orellana, Ed.D. candidate, Co-Principal investigator, 323-947-6467; Reynaldo
Baca, Ph.D., Principal investigator, faculty sponsor Rossier School of Education, WPH
604A, USC, Los Angeles, CA 90089, 213-740-2361.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272.

68

APPENDIX B: SURVEY
Employment History
School Name
Starting Date of Teaching Career _________/__________/__________
Starting Date of Employment At This
School _________/__________/__________
Grade Levels Ever Taught
(Check all that apply.)
Pre-K or K
Grades 1-2
Grades 3-4
Grades 5-6
Middle School
High School
Other (please specify)_______________
Grade Level Currently Teaching
Pre-K or K
Grades 1-2
Grades 3-4
Grades 5-6
Other (please specify)_______________
For Researcher Use Only:

Survey#:____________________

69

Type of Instructional Program for
English Learners (ELs).

Please check the box that most closely
describes the instructional program you
taught before Proposition 227.

(Check all that apply.)
Not a program for English Learners.
Dual language or dual immersion
program.
A bilingual developmental or heritage
language program to produce students
who are bilingual readers, writers, and
speakers.
A transitional bilingual program that
initially delivers instruction in the
student’s home language while adding
English as a second language.
An English language development
program (ELD).
An ELD program with Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in
English (SDAIE) with primary language
support.
An ELD program with SDAIE without
primary language support.
An English phonics approach using
“Open Court” or “Breaking the Code.”
Other type of program (very briefly
describe the program in the space below):
______________________________________

70

Please check the box that most closely
describes the instructional program in
which you currently work.

(Check all that apply.)
Not teaching in a program for English
Learners.
Dual language or dual immersion
program.
A bilingual developmental or heritage
language program to produce students
who are bilingual readers, writers, and
speakers.
A transitional bilingual program that
initially delivers instruction in the
student’s home language while adding
English as a second language.
An English language development
program (ELD).
An ELD program with Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in
English (SDAIE) with primary language
support.
An ELD program with SDAIE without
primary language support.
An English phonics approach using
“Open Court” or “Breaking the Code.”
Other type of program (very briefly
describe the program in the space below):
______________________________________

71

Degrees Earned or Working Toward
Type of Degree College or University Date Earned Expected Date
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Doctoral Degree
Other (specify)

Current Permit or Teaching Credential and Expected Teaching Credential
Type of Degree College or University Date Earned Expected Date of
Completion
Emergency Permit
District Intern
Credential Multiple

Preliminary CLAD
Multiple Subjects

Preliminary B-CLAD
Multiple Subjects

Clear CLAD Multiple
Subjects

Clear B-CLAD
Multiple Subjects

Other Types of
Credential/Certificates
National Board Certification

Reading Resource Specialist

Other (specify)

72

On the following statements, please place an X in the box according to the
strength

Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1

A student who is not proficient in
English should be in a classroom
learning his/her first language
(reading and writing as part of the
school curriculum).

2

My preference would be to teach
English language learners in their
primary language.

3

English should be the official
language of the United States.

4

Whenever possible, I modify or add
lessons or materials that ensure that
the child's native culture is
acknowledged and valued.

5

A student who is proficient (reading
and writing) in both Spanish and
English should be enrolled in a
classroom where the first language
is part of the curriculum.

6
Proposition 227 was directed at
Spanish speaking students more
than other language minority
students.

7

I am not in the Instructional
Program for English language
learners (i.e., English immersion,
waiver) I want to be in.

73
8
Language minority students are
under-represented in gifted programs
because there is a general belief that
they will not qualify.

9

A student who is transitioned to
English too early will be negatively
affected in his/her ability to achieve
academically in English.

1
0

It is necessary to know both English
and Spanish if you live in Los
Angeles.

1
1

A limited English language learner
who can speak English and
understand it should be instructed in
English only.

1
2

It is unreasonable to expect an
unauthorized (BCLAD/CLAD)
teacher to teach a child who does
not speak English.

1
3

Language minority students are
over referred to special education
because we do not have a program
in their native language.

1
4

Students' development of literacy
in their first language will facilitate
the development of reading and
writing in English.

1
5
Parents at my school want their
children to only learn English.

1
6
1
Other than the basal reader, I
provide students with books to read
in their primary language.

74
1
7

Regular classroom teachers should
be required to receive pre-service or
in-service training to be prepared to
meet the needs of linguistic
minorities.

On the following statements, please place an X in the box according to the
strength

Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1
8
Parents at my school want their
children to be bilingual.

1
9

A teacher should be proficient in the
students' first language in order to
effectively teach them during the
transition to the English stage.

2
0
Many schools treat the bilingual
program as a necessary evil imposed
by the state.

2
1

I allow English language learners the
opportunity to use their primary
language in classroom writing
lessons.

2
2
BCLAD teachers get more students
with behavioral problems.

2
3

High levels of bilingualism can
result in higher development of
knowledge or mental skills.

2
4
Students in California should receive
a bilingual seal on their high school
diploma if they pass certification tests
or classes.

2
5
I use the student's primary language
for instruction at least once a day.

2
6

The reading program (OCR,
Houghton Mifflin) in my classroom
best meets the needs of the ELL
student.

2
7
A successful student is a student that is
biliterate in English and Spanish.

2
8

A child who reads and writes in
his/her first language will be able to
learn academic English faster and
easier than a child who cannot read
and write in his/her first language.

2
9
Proponents of Proposition 227 also
promoted Proposition 209.

3
0

Students must learn English as quickly
as possible, even if it means the loss
of the native language.

3
1
A successful student is a student that
is literate in English only.

3
2

A student who is not proficient in
English should be in a classroom
learning subject matter (e.g., match,
science, etc.) in his/her first
language.

3
3
English learners should be able to see
people like themselves in the school
curriculum.

3
4

At school the learning of the English
language by non- or limited-English-
proficient children should take
precedent over learning subject matter.

3
5
It is important to me to be a bilingual
role model for my students.

3
6

A student who is not proficient in
English will do better in school if he
or she learns to read and write in
his/her home language first.

77

On the following statements, please place an X in the box according to the
strength

Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
37
It is harder to teach English
learners than to teach English Only
students.

38

I use the primary language in my
English immersion class for
instruction when an English
language learner has difficulty un-
derstanding a concept initially
taught in English.

39
I prefer to teach English-Only
students.

40

Second language learners in an
English-only class will learn English
more efficiently.

41

My classroom's instructional
program (waiver, English
immersion, dual immersion) for
English learners appropriately ad-
dresses the needs of English
language learners.

42
Teachers must understand the
communities in which they teach.

43

The development of the native
language helps develop a sense of
biculturalism.

44
Teachers should make home visits.

45

It is good for students to maintain
their native culture, as well as
American culture.

78

46
Teachers should live in the
neighborhood they teach in.

47

I modify the reading program (adjust
pace of lesson, use a different
lesson to address goals, add or
take out reading selections, etc.) to
better address the needs of the Eng-
lish learners in my class.

The following questions are for teachers
in a school with a waiver program only.
On the following statements, please
place an X in the box according to the
strength of your belief.
Strongly
Disagre
e
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
48

The waiver program at my school
is on a separate track/schedule that
is not compatible with my
personal schedule.

49

I was not able to teach a waiver
class because of my seniority at
the school.

50

My school site has a well-defined
and articulated bilingual program
(waiver) for its ELD students.

Note: Underlined numbers are questions used for this study and referred to in chapters 3
and 4. Questions with no underlined secondary numeration were questions that
addressed critical race theory themes and were omitted in this study.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explored the attitudes and beliefs towards bilingual education and English learners of teachers in bilingual education programs and non-bilingual education programs. This quantitative study surveyed teachers 11 years after the passing of Proposition 227, a law aimed to reform bilingual education in California. The participating teachers taught in two southern California school districts. The findings were that there was a difference between teacher beliefs of teachers in bilingual education programs and teachers teaching in non-bilingual education programs. T-tests were conducted and the results indicated that teachers in bilingual education programs in general had more positive beliefs towards bilingual education than did teachers in nonbilingual programs. Other findings were that while there was no significant difference in attitudes between teachers in bilingual education programs and non-bilingual education programs there was a difference in teaching practices that take into consideration students’ language needs. Teachers in bilingual education programs were found to be more likely to consider their English language learning students’ needs in their teaching practices.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District

PDF

Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

PDF

Urban teacher persistence: self-efficacy, affect, and values

PDF

Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area

PDF

Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success

PDF

An analysis of the selection and training of guiding teachers in an urban teacher education program

PDF

Gifted Spanish speaking English learners' participation in advanced placement programs

PDF

Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions

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

BTSA mentors: the costs and benefits to mentors and their fidelity to constructivist practice

PDF

Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

MAT@USC and Latino English language learners

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Teacher's use of socio-constructivist practices to facilitate mathematics learning

PDF

Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Orellana, Karen Jeannette (author)

Core Title Teacher beliefs on bilingual education for English learners post proposition 227

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2011-05

Publication Date 03/28/2011

Defense Date 01/20/2011

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bilingual education,California,English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest,Proposition 227,teacher beliefs

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Gokalp, Gokce (committee member)

Creator Email kjorella@usc.edu,kjorellana@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3702

Unique identifier UC1502618

Identifier etd-Orellana-3434 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-442025 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3702 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Orellana-3434.pdf

Dmrecord 442025

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Orellana, Karen Jeannette

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu