See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254305639

What Do Parents Think of Two-Way Bilingual

Education? An Analysis of Responses

Article  in  Journal of Latinos and Education · April 2007

DOI: 10.1080/15348430701304807

CITATIONS READS

15 474

1 author:

Francisco Ramos Calvo

Loyola Marymount University
29 PUBLICATIONS   102 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Director of the III INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON LANGUAGES, CULTURES, IDENTITY IN SCHOOL AND SOCIETY. Soria,
Spain, July 5'7, 2017 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francisco Ramos Calvo on 07 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION, 6(2), 139–150
Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

What Do Parents Think

of Two-Way Bilingual Education?
An Analysis of Responses
Francisco Ramos
Department of Teacher Education
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles

Three hundred sixty-six parents of children enrolled in a school-wide English–Span-

ish two-way bilingual program participated in this study. They were asked to answer
a survey that attempted to elicit information about their degree of satisfaction with
the program, as well as the reasons that led them to select it, and their perception of
and support for Spanish. In their responses, the parents showed strong support for the
program, valued its academic and linguistic emphasis, had positive opinions about
Spanish, and created home environments that facilitated their children’s develop-
ment of literacy skills in this language.

Key words: two-way programs, bilingual education, parents’ opinions

Two-way bilingual education is a form of dual-language education that places a

balanced number of language majority and language minority students in inte-
grated settings for all or most of the day to receive literacy and content instruction
in and through two languages (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2005b; de Jong,
2002). This educational approach has four central goals: development of high lev-
els of linguistic and academic proficiency in both languages of instruction for both
student groups, students’ development of positive cross-cultural attitudes and be-
haviors, and in maintenance of academic standards and curriculum similar to those
which must be met by students in other programs (Howard, Sugarman, & Chris-
tian, 2003).

Correspondence should be addressed to Francisco Ramos, Department of Teacher Education,

Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, Suite 2743, Los Angeles, CA 90045. E-mail: framos@
lmu.edu
140 RAMOS

To achieve their goals, two-way programs may adopt different implementa-

tion models. The most common ones are 90/10 or “minority-language domi-
nant,” 50–50 or “balanced,” and “differentiated” (Howard, Sugarman, & Chris-
tian, 2003). Students in a 90–10 model receive most of their instruction in the
minority language initially. As they progress throughout the grades, the amount
of primary language decreases and that of English increases until, usually by
fourth grade, the two languages are used in equal amounts of time. Students in a
50–50 model receive instruction in the two languages in equal amounts of time
from the beginning. Finally, students in differentiated programs receive varying
percentages of instruction in the two languages (Howard, Sugarman, & Chris-
tian, 2003).
Research has shown the effectiveness of two-way bilingual education. Students
attending these programs achieved high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy
(Cazabon, Lambert, & Hall, 1993; Howard & Christian, 1997; Howard, Christian,
& Genesee, 2003), while performing well academically (Alanis, 2000; de Jong,
2002; Lindholm-Leary; 2001; Lopez & Tashakkori, 2004; Thomas & Collier,
2002). Furthermore, they also developed favorable attitudes toward the programs,
bilingualism, and other cultural groups (Cazabon, 2000; Lambert & Cazabon,
1994; Lindholm & Aclan, 1993; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Needless to say, these
benefits have positively contributed to the growth and spread of two-way bilingual
programs in the U.S. Relatively unknown until recently, the 315 programs existing
in 2005 represented a nearly 300% increase in the last decade (Center for Applied
Linguistics, 2005a).
These programs seem to be strongly supported by teachers (Howard & Loeb,
1998; Lindholm-Leary, 2001) and by parents with children enrolled in them
(Craig, 1996; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Shannon & Milian, 2002). Parents, espe-
cially, have valued two-way bilingual education as an enriching educational expe-
rience for their children; moreover, they have shown their appreciation for what
they considered two fundamental assets of the programs: their academic emphasis
and the opportunity for their children to be exposed to other languages and cultures
(for a review of the research, see Howard, Sugarman, & Christian, 2003). This arti-
cle is intended to add to the body of research in this area by examining the reasons
parents enroll their children in a two-way bilingual program, their degree of satis-
faction with various components of the program, and their opinions about and sup-
port for Spanish, the minority language in this case.

METHOD

Setting
The project was conducted in a pre-K–5 public school located in a large urban dis-
trict in South Florida. The school was the district’s second most recent addition to
 PARENTS’ VIEWS OF TWO-WAY BILINGUAL EDUCATION 141

the already-existing elementary sites housing whole-school two-way bilingual ed-

ucation programs (Freeman, Freeman, & Mercury, 2005) in the area. Although it
was a neighborhood school, due to the special characteristics of its program, stu-
dents living in the area but not wishing to attend it were allowed to request transfers
to other sites.
The objectives of the program, according to the informational bulletin of the
school, were to develop and promote its students’ bilingual, biliterate, and criti-
cal-thinking skills, as well as their cultural heritage and respect for others. To
achieve these objectives, the academic curriculum consisted of English and Span-
ish Language Arts, Math, Social Studies, and Science, plus English for Speakers of
Other Languages (ESOL), Spanish as a Second Language (SSL), Spanish for
Spanish Speakers (SSS), Curriculum Content in Spanish (CCS), and second-lan-
guage reinforcement classes. Following the district’s original model, established
in the 1960s, students in the program were placed in integrated settings where they
spent 60% of their school day in and through English and 40% in and through
Spanish in each grade.
At the time the project was conducted, the administrative team of the school
consisted of the principal and two assistant principals. There were also 56 regular
classroom teachers as well as 5 exceptional student teachers and 2 guidance coun-
selors. School enrollment consisted of 1,072 students, 58% of whom qualified for
free or reduced lunch. Students represented 26 countries, 18 of which were from
North and South America, 4 from Europe, and the remaining 4 from Asia. Lan-
guages spoken by the students included Spanish, Chinese, Malay, Korean, Roma-
nian, English, and German. By ethnicity, 94% of the student body was classified as
Hispanic, 4% as White–Non-Hispanic, 1% as Black–Non-Hispanic, and the re-
maining 1% as Asian–Multiracial. Although most of the students were of Hispanic
origin, English was the primary language of a large majority of them (Oller &
Eilers, 2002). In fact, only 24% of them were officially classified as Limited Eng-
lish Proficient.

Instrument and Data Collection

The instrument used to collect information for this project was the parent survey
included in Lindholm-Leary’s (2001) book, “Dual language education.” The sur-
vey consisted of 41 items, divided into four sections: background information (9
items), participation in school activities (7 items), support for different compo-
nents of the program (20 items), and support for biliteracy (5 items). The first sec-
tion attempted to gather information about the parents’ educational and linguistic
attainment, ethnicity, and language use at home. The second section asked them to
describe their involvement and participation in school activities, such as volunteer-
ing in classrooms, helping at school, or attending parent group meetings. The third
section examined parents’ satisfaction with various components of the two-way bi-
142 RAMOS

lingual program as well as their perception of the benefits of learning Spanish for
their children. Finally, the last section of the survey sought to determine how often
parents read with their children in English and in Spanish and whether they facili-
tated their children’s interaction with other Spanish-speaking children. Partici-
pants were asked to rate their responses to the last two sections on a 5-point
Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
The researcher placed the parent surveys and consent letters in envelopes bear-
ing the different classroom numbers. He handed the envelopes to one of the school
vice principals, who, in turn, handed them to the teachers during one of their regu-
larly scheduled staff meetings. The teachers were asked to distribute the surveys
among their students and to collect them back as soon as possible to ensure a high
return rate.

Participants
Because the 1,072 students enrolled at the school included several siblings from
the same families, the consent letter attached to the survey asked the parents to re-
spond to only one survey per family, using their oldest child as a model (as indi-
cated in the original by Lindholm-Leary [2001]). As a result, the number of poten-
tial participants in the project decreased to 745. Three hundred sixty-six surveys
were returned, which accounted for 49.13% of the total. Two hundred eighty-six of
them were completed by mothers, 49 by fathers, and 2 by “others”; the remaining
29 did not provide an answer to this question. Nearly 94% of the respondents de-
scribed themselves as Hispanic-Latino, 2.2% as Caucasian, 1.4% as Asian-Ameri-
can, 0.8% as African American, and 0.3% as American Indian–Alaskan Native.

FINDINGS

Tables 1 and 2 contain background information about the participants. As can be

seen, a majority of the subjects were highly educated, with more than two thirds of
the mothers and more than half of the fathers having attended institutions of higher
education. On the other hand, only a very small percentage of both mothers and fa-
thers did not have a high school degree. Language-wise, Spanish was the native
language of nearly 86% of the mothers and 78% of the fathers. Although nearly
52% of the mothers and more than 43% of the fathers considered themselves bilin-
gual, slightly more than 38% of the former and 37% of the latter remained Spanish
monolingual. As revealed in Table 2, around half of the mothers and fathers used
Spanish to talk to their children, and nearly 58% of the parents used Spanish to
communicate with each other, but more than one fourth of the mothers and almost
23% of the fathers used English to communicate with their children. An additional
 PARENTS’ VIEWS OF TWO-WAY BILINGUAL EDUCATION 143

TABLE 1
Parents’Educational Level and Language(s) Spoken

Mother Father

Highest educational level

Graduate school 19.4 15.0
4-year college 18.3 15.0
Community college 28.7 22.7
High school 25.1 25.7
Less than high school 3.8 6.0
Language(s) spoken
English 4.6 4.1
Spanish 38.5 37.4
Both 51.9 43.7
First language learned
English 6.3 3.8
Spanish 85.8 78.1
Both 2.2 0.8

TABLE 2
Language Use at Home

Language Spoken Mother to Child Father to Child Parents to Each Other

English 25.4 22.7 13.1

Spanish 48.4 51.4 57.7
Both 22.4 15.8 15.3

22% of the mothers and nearly 16% of the fathers used both languages for this
purpose.
Table 3 shows the top three reasons parents enrolled their children in the pro-
gram. Nearly 30% of them selected the opportunity for their children to develop a
strong bilingual–bicultural identity as their top reason, and an additional 33.4%
valued the academic quality and career-related advantages of the program. Notice-
ably, the percentage of parents who chose the program simply because it was
housed in their “neighborhood school” as their first, second, or third reason was
considerably lower than that of those who chose it because of its academic, social,
and cultural benefits combined.
Table 4 reveals parents’ degree of satisfaction with the program as well as their
perception of the advantages of learning Spanish for their children. Overall, the
parents were pleased with the academic rigor of the program. More than 82% of
them believed it gave their children access to subject matter; 83.1% and 66.1%
thought it helped their children develop their English reading and writing abilities,
respectively; and 72.4% believed it helped their children develop communication
144 RAMOS

TABLE 3
Reasons for Children Enrollment in Program

First Second Third

Neighborhood school 20.8 5.2 9.0

High-quality academic program 11.5 10.1 8.2
Ability to communicate with Spanish speakers 12.6 13.7 31.4
Academic or career advantages 21.9 32.2 10.9
Stronger bilingual–bicultural identity 29.2 20.5 19.9

TABLE 4
Satisfaction With Program and Advantages of Learning Spanish

Strongly Agree Not Sure Strongly Disagree

Program gives children access to subject matter 82.2 7.7 6.3

Program does not develop ability to 12.0 7.4 72.4
communicate in Spanish
Program develops ability to read in English 83.1 7.4 6.0
Program does not develop ability to write in 14.2 11.7 66.1
English
Spanish important to make child smarter 65.3 15.6 14.5
Learn Spanish to be comfortable with Spanish 92.6 1.1 2.8
speakers
Learn Spanish to converse with more people 91.8 0.8 3.3
Learn Spanish to understand Hispanic culture 91.5 1.4 3.8
Learn Spanish to participate in activities of 91.3 2.5 2.7
other cultural groups
Spanish important for future career of children 89.7 3.8 2.4
Recommend program to others 87.4 5.2 4.1

skills in Spanish. A large majority of the parents held Spanish in high regard.
Nearly 90% of them thought that Spanish was important for the future careers of
their children, and more than 90% of them believed that learning Spanish would al-
low their children to communicate with more people, to feel more comfortable
with other Spanish speakers, and to better understand Hispanic and other cultures.
Not surprisingly, given these figures, more than 87% of the parents were willing to
recommend the program to others.
As shown in Table 5 the parents valued the efforts of the school to reach to the
community. Around 80% of them recognized the faculty and staff’s drive to pro-
mote diversity, to balance the needs of the English- and Spanish-speaking commu-
nities, and to make Hispanic parents feel welcome at school. In contrast, only 61%
of the parents believed that the school administration was supportive of these ef-
forts, although an additional 20.5% were simply “not sure.”
 PARENTS’ VIEWS OF TWO-WAY BILINGUAL EDUCATION 145

TABLE 5
School–Community Relations

Strongly Agree Not Sure Strongly Disagree

Hispanic parents valuable part of school culture 82.5 8.7 3.2

Faculty and staff promote diversity 80.1 11.5 4.7
Faculty–Staff balance needs of English and 79.5 10.7 5.0
Spanish communities
School community needs are supported by 11.5 20.5 61.2
administration

Table 6 reflects parents’ involvement in the education of their children. Very re-
markably, more than 86% of the parents agreed that their own involvement in
school activities benefited the school community and about 90% of them believed
they possessed the necessary academic and linguistic abilities to help their chil-
dren with homework.
Table 7 shows how parents supported the school’s goal of biliteracy for all. Ap-
proximately two thirds of the parents read frequently with their children in English
and in Spanish, and more than 60% of them provided access to Spanish books for

TABLE 6
Parental Involvement

Strongly Agree Not Sure Strongly Disagree

Involvement important for school community 86.3 7.9 1.9

Possesses academic skills to help with 90.2 4.1 2.1
homework
Possesses language skills to help with 89.1 5.2 1.6
homework

TABLE 7
Parental Support for Spanish

Usually 1 to 2 Times 1 to 2 Times 1 to 2 Times Almost

Daily Per Week Per Month Per Year Never

Read with child in Spanish 23.8 39.3 21.0 4.9 8.5

Read with child in English 32.5 34.4 15.6 3.6 11.7
Check out or buy books in 14.5 11.7 35.5 17.8 18.0
Spanish
Invite home Spanish- 29.5 33.3 24.0 4.1 6.6
speaking friends
Child visits Spanish- 25.7 34.4 24.3 3.6 9.3
speaking children
146 RAMOS

their children on a regular basis. Finally, more than 84% of the parents facilitated
their children’s periodic encounters with Spanish-speaking friends in an effort to
promote and develop their children’s Spanish skills.

DISCUSSION

The results of the survey used in this project revealed that a large majority of the
parents were very supportive of the two-way program. Most of the parents believed
that the program provided their children with the subject-matter knowledge they
needed, exposed them to two languages and cultures, and expanded their cultural
and linguistic horizons. In addition, they valued its academic and linguistic priori-
ties and appreciated its positive impact on their children’s linguistic and academic
skills. These results are consistent with other studies showing similar levels of sup-
port for two-way bilingual education among parents (Howard, Sugarman, &
Christian, 2003; Shannon & Milian, 2002).
A majority of the parents believed that the program provided their children with
adequate subject matter and helped them develop their English literacy as well as
their oral skills in Spanish. Moreover, they thought that their children benefitted
from cultural and career-related advantages, such as being more comfortable
among Spanish speakers, being able to converse with more people, and achieving a
better understanding of Hispanic and other cultures. Interestingly, the two items
phrased negatively (“the program does not help children develop ability to com-
municate in Spanish” and “the program does not develop the ability to write in
English”) were the ones receiving the least amount of support (although still a very
remarkable 72.4% and 66.1%, respectively). Responses to these two items, there-
fore, should be examined with caution because they might be due to an erroneous
interpretation on the part of the parents. Given the parents’ strong support for the
remaining items in the category and the nearly 90% of them who were willing to
recommend the program to others, this is certainly a possibility.
When asked why they had chosen the program, the top reason for 41.8% of the
parents was either the opportunity for their children to develop a stronger bilin-
gual–bicultural identity or an increase in their children’s ability to communicate
with other Spanish speakers. An additional 33.4% of the parents selected aca-
demic- and career-related advantages and the academic quality of the program.
The percentages of parents who opted for the same choices as their second or third
elections were 34.2% and 42.3%, and 51.3% and 19.1%, respectively. Interest-
ingly, only 20.8%, 5.2%, and 9.0% of the parents chose “neighborhood school” as
their first, second, and third reason, respectively, despite the fact that the site was a
neighborhood school for all the participants. Parents were not asked to elaborate
on their responses, and therefore, no additional information could be obtained
about this specific choice. However, some speculations are possible. It might be
 PARENTS’ VIEWS OF TWO-WAY BILINGUAL EDUCATION 147

that many parents only enrolled their children in the program because of their
proximity to the school. It might also be that their response did not explicitly ex-
clude their recognition of the academic and linguistic value of the program. In
other words, the parents’ top reason for choosing the school was proximity to the
site, but, in addition, they were happy with the characteristics of the program. The
high percentage of parents who were drawn to the program by its academic and lin-
guistic emphasis appears to indicate their genuine appreciation for the additive ap-
proach toward languages embraced by the school (Ovando, Collier, & Combs,
2003), thereby surpassing mere closeness to the site as their preferred option.
Nearly 90% of the parents believed that the school community benefitted from
their own participation in the education of their children, and a large majority of
them worked proactively in this endeavor. Undoubtedly, their involvement was fa-
cilitated by their high Spanish proficiency and educational attainment. Linguis-
tically, more than 85% of the mothers and 78% of the fathers were native Spanish
speakers, and nearly 52% of the mothers and 44% of the fathers acknowledged be-
ing bilingual in English and Spanish. Educationally, more than 66% of the mothers
and more than 52% of the fathers had attended institutions of higher education, and
an additional 25.1% of the mothers and 25.7% of the fathers had completed high
school. Their preparation enabled the parents to help their children with home-
work, become more knowledgeable about the inner workings of the program, and
understand the decisive role they played in the academic and linguistic progress of
their children. Thus, most of the parents were familiar with the academic and lin-
guistic components of the program, appreciated their benefits, valued Spanish ac-
cordingly, and actively supported their children’s progress toward biliteracy. As an
example, a large majority of them read with their children in English and Spanish
and made concerted efforts to promote Spanish in their families by checking out
from the library or buying Spanish books, by reading to and with their children in
this language, and by facilitating their children’s encounters with other Span-
ish-speaking children. Their combined efforts contributed to their children’s ac-
quisition of English because of the existing transfer of skills between languages
(Krashen, 1996) and the constant access to comprehensible input they provided in
both English and Spanish (Krashen & Biber, 1988). Their supplemental explana-
tions and clarifications made the texts more understandable for their children and
this, in turn, eased their children’s English acquisition process (Krashen & Biber,
1988). Reading was also a powerful force throughout this process because of its
positive impact on the development of literacy, vocabulary, grammar, and syntax
(Krashen, 2004).
These results were comparable to those obtained by Shannon and Milian (2002)
in their analysis of Colorado parents’ opinions about two-way programs. The ef-
fective combination of the aforementioned factors contributed to the creation of a
favorable learning environment at home that supported, continued, and enriched
the efforts of the school. Furthermore, the supplemental help provided by the par-
148 RAMOS

ents had a direct impact on the academic success of their children (Tapia, 2000)
and helped reinforce the importance of education among the latter (Sampson,
2004).
The parents’ favorable perception of Spanish resulted in their frequent use of
this language at home. Nearly half of the mothers and the fathers addressed their
children exclusively in Spanish, and more than half of the parents used Spanish to
communicate with each other, to read to their children, and to facilitate their chil-
dren’s encounters with other Spanish-speaking friends. These activities helped
prevent (or, at least, delay) heritage language loss (Krashen, 1998), something that
was not possible in other studies on the same issue. For example, Lao (2004), in her
study of Chinese parents’ attitudes toward Chinese–English bilingual education
and Chinese language use found out that Chinese parents’ efforts to promote their
heritage language at home were thwarted by their own limited proficiency in Chi-
nese. What the parents in our study could not avoid, despite their Spanish profi-
ciency, was a perceptible and progressive switch to English. Thus, although 85.5%
of the mothers and 78.1% of the fathers reported being native Spanish speakers,
25.4% of the mothers and 22.7% of the fathers used English to interact with their
children, and an additional 22.4% of the former and 15.8% of the latter used both
languages for the same purpose.
Lastly, it is interesting to point out that approximately 38% of both mothers and
fathers remained Spanish monolinguals. It might be that many of them were recent
arrivals in the United States and, therefore, had not had time to learn English. It
might also be that the powerful presence of Spanish in the area had allowed them to
subsist without having had to learn English. Finally, it might be that some of the
parents spoke some English but did not feel they had sufficient command of this
language to describe themselves as bilingual. Because the questionnaire did not
ask the respondents about their country of birth or the length of their stay in the
United States, it was not possible to investigate the causes of this linguistic
isolation.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of this project reveal that a large majority of the parents supported
the two-way program because of its academic and linguistic focus, and its positive
impact on their children. Most of the parents believed that the program provided
their children with subject-matter knowledge and literacy skills in English and
Spanish, exposed them to two languages and cultures, helped them better under-
stand Hispanic and other cultures, and expanded their cultural and linguistic
horizons.
Remarkably, the parents in this study were not passive agents in the schooling
of their children. Rather, they understood that their active participation after the
 PARENTS’ VIEWS OF TWO-WAY BILINGUAL EDUCATION 149

end of the school day supported the efforts of the school and contributed to their
children’s success (Sampson, 2004). Creating an effective home–school partner-
ship encompassed reading with their children in two languages, using Spanish at
home as the preferred vehicle of communication, and increasing their children’s
opportunities to use Spanish with family and friends.
This study has two implications. First, the parents in this study made it clear that
they valued the academic and linguistic benefits of the program. Therefore, it
seems evident that high academic and linguistic quality must become two-way’s
trademarks and, most important, pillars. The implementation of solid programs
firmly anchored on the development of academic knowledge and biliteracy skills
will improve two-way’s marketability and acceptance among the public as an en-
riching educational alternative. Parents and educators must be embarked in this en-
deavor (Shannon & Milian, 2002) to ensure the creation of a strong support net-
work that helps reach adequate levels of funding for the programs and the
development of high academic and linguistic standards.
Second, this study revealed the crucial role of the parents in the maintenance
and development of minority languages. Parental support for Spanish at home con-
tinued the efforts of the school and conveyed to children the unequivocal message
that Spanish was alive, useful, and worth being maintained. Although many par-
ents had achieved fluency in English, the allure of biliteracy and its acknowledged
rewards acted as catalysts that motivated them to embrace the challenge. As this
study reveals, heritage language maintenance is a continuous struggle. However,
minority languages will continue to be treated as second-class languages unless
they are adequately promoted at school and equally supported at home (Alanis,
2000).

REFERENCES

Alanis, I. (2000). A Texas two-way bilingual program: Its effects on linguistic and academic achieve-
ment. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 225–248.
Cazabon, M. T. (2000). The use of students’self-reporting in the evaluation of the Amigos two-way lan-
guage immersion program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Cazabon, M., Lambert, W. E., & Hall, G. (1993). Two-way bilingual education: A progress report on
the Amigos program. Santa Cruz, CA: The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and
Second Language Learning.
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2005a) Growth of TWI programs, 1962–present. Retrieved May 27,
2005, from: http://cal.org/twi/directory/table.htm
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2005b). Guiding principles for dual language education. Retrieved
May 27, 2005, from http://cal.org/twi/GP_draft.doc
Craig, B. A. (1996). Parental attitudes toward bilingualism in a local two-way immersion program. Bi-
lingual Research Journal, 20, 384–410.
de Jong, E. (2002). Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way
bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 65–84.
150 RAMOS

Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercury, S. (2005). Dual language essentials for teachers and adminis-
trators. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Howard E. R., & Christian, D. (1997). The development of bilingualism and biliteracy in two-way im-
mersion students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research As-
sociation, Chicago, IL.
Howard, E. R., Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2003). The development of bilingualism and biliteracy
from Grades 3 to 5: A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE study of two-way immersion edu-
cation. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Howard, E., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education: A review of
the research. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
Howard, E. R., & Loeb, M. I. (1998). In their own words: Two-way immersion teachers talk about their
professional experiences. Retrieved September 1, 2005, from www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/
intheirownwords.html
Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language
Education Associates.
Krashen, S. D. (1998). Heritage-language development: Some practical arguments. In S. D. Krashen,
L. Tse, & J. McQuillan (Eds.), Heritage language development (pp. 3–13). Culver City, CA: Lan-
guage Education Associates.
Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Krashen, S. D., & Biber, D. (1988). On course: Bilingual education’s success in California. Sacra-
mento: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Lambert, W. E., & Cazabon, M. (1994). Students’ views of the Amigos program. Santa Cruz, CA: Na-
tional Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Lao, C. (2004). Parents’ attitudes toward Chinese–English bilingual education and Chinese language
use. Bilingual Research Journal, 28, 99–118.
Lindholm, K., & Aclan, Z. (1993). Relationships among psychological factors and academic achieve-
ment in bilingual Hispanic and Anglo students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Lopez, M. G., & Tashakkori, A. (2004). Effects of a two-way bilingual program on the literacy develop-
ment of students in kindergarten and first grade. Bilingual Research Journal, 28, 19–34.
Oller, D., & Eilers, R. (2002). An integrated approach to evaluating effects of bilingualism in Miami
school children: The study design. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bi-
lingual children (pp. 22–40). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Ovando, C. J., Collier, V. P., & Combs, M. C. (2003). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multi-
cultural contexts (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sampson, W. A. (2004). Black and brown: Race, ethnicity, and school preparation. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.
Shannon, S., & Milian, M. (2002). Parents choose dual language programs in Colorado: A survey. Bi-
lingual Research Journal, 26, 681–696.
Tapia, J. (2000). Schooling and learning in U.S.–Mexican families: A case study of households. Urban
Review, 32, 25–44.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority
students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Di-
versity, and Excellence.
View publication stats