Opening doors for bilingual students: Recommendations for building linguistically responsive schools

Abstract

In this article, we outline the necessary action steps for schools to improve the achievement of bilingual students. We review, summarize, and utilize the pertinent scholarly literature to make suggestions for school-wide, collaborative efforts to support the achievement of bilingual learners through linguistically responsive pedagogy and practice. Our research-based recommendations include the need for school actors to negotiate language policy and mandates, lay the necessary ideological foundations, build effective school structures and systems, and foster meaningful collaboration with families and communities. When teachers, administrators, counselors, families, and community members work together, schools can improve to promote the social, cultural, linguistic, and academic achievement of bilingual students.

Keywords

diverse students English learners immigrant students language education school change school reform

Introduction

Schools across the world are more diverse today than ever before (Banks, 2008), including a rise in students who enter classrooms speaking a language other than the medium-of-instruction (Tsui & Tollefson, 2004). Nevertheless, cultural diversity maintains the predominant focus in educational literature, with language subsumed as one aspect of culture (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). As language diversity increases in the school-age population (Banks, 2007), educators must acknowledge and address the challenges and issues related to linguistic difference. When schools make an explicit effort to improve practice around language-related issues, educators can effectively support bilingual students’ social, cultural, linguistic, and academic achievement (Wrigley, 2000). Building on the notion of culturally responsive practice (Gay, 2010), we utilize linguistically responsive practice (Lucas et al., 2008) to conceptualize the school that constructs policies, foundations, structures, and communities to value, celebrate, and utilize language and linguistic diversity.

The purpose of this article is to share recommendations to improve schools for bilingual students, grounded in the scholarly literature and our practical experiences in schools. Our dialogue on effective practices with bilingual students began in a doctoral seminar entitled ‘Linguistically responsive practice: Re-thinking language education in the United States’, which utilized current research to push forward discussion on language education in various contexts. Each author contributed a unique perspective to the dialogue with our past and current professional roles, including the lenses of administrator, instructional coach, teacher, professor, community member, and parent. With varying experiences in education, including curriculum, instruction, assessment, administration, and policies, the seminar sparked participants’ interests in contributing to a field of growing importance internationally. The present text offers its readers an amalgamation of theory and practice, as guided by a) readings that began our conversations on the topic, b) pertinent literature on language education to enrich and provide comprehensive, research-based recommendations for schools, and c) general literature on effective school change to address the gaps in language-specific research.

We explain how school actors can collaborate with colleagues, parents, and partners to conceptualize and utilize linguistic diversity as an opportunity, rather than a challenge. Our goal is to encourage local actors to improve and change schools from within (Barth, 1990; Wrigley, 2003, 2004), linking theory and practice to provide practical tools for all stakeholders. Rather than create a list of static characteristics or fixed factors that oversimplifies the process of school improvement (Wrigley, 2000, 2003, 2004), we utilize the findings in the broader literature to outline a sequence of dynamic and flexible steps for each unique school to reflect and embark upon the change process to a) negotiate language policy and practice, b) lay the ideological groundwork for school change, c) build school structures and support systems, and d) foster collaborative communities of learners (Table 1). We close with future directions for research and practice to open the door for continued school improvement for bilingual students.

Table 1.

Steps toward building a linguistically responsive school

Negotiate language policy and practice.
✓ Investigate the language policies and guidelines.
✓ Recognize the language needs at the school.
✓ Advocate for bilingual students.
Lay the ideological groundwork for school change.
✓ Draft a vision that incorporates linguistic diversity.
✓ Define a mission with goals to guide daily practice.
✓ Cultivate a culture of achievement and diversity.
Build school structures and support systems.
✓ Evaluate and align school structures and schedule.
✓ Organize social networks and relationships.
✓ Target and scaffold language to support achievement.
✓ Plan and provide rigorous academic instruction.
Foster collaborative communities of learners.
✓ Support school-based teacher dialogue and learning.
✓ Enlist and engage multiple community stakeholders.
✓ Mutually collaborate with parents and families.

Negotiate language policy and practice

Educators often talk wistfully about what happens when they close the classroom door and get down to the business of teaching, where closing the door symbolizes shutting out policies that get in the way of vibrant and responsive teaching and learning (Heineke & Cameron, 2012). By closing the door the teacher creates an educational space shielded from outside pressures, but simultaneously limits the possibility for broader advocacy for students inside the classroom (Valdés, 2001). Teachers must open their classrooms and embrace opportunities to improve education for bilingual students on a larger scale. Educators then begin to build linguistically responsive schools through the negotiation of language policy and practice to a) investigate required policies and guidelines, b) recognize the school’s unique linguistic needs and challenges, and c) advocate for bilingual students.

Investigate language policies and guidelines

Language policy guides educators in the design and implementation of language teaching and learning. Described as an onion to capture the complexities of the many agents and processes involved (Evans & Hornberger, 2005; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996), policy is not a strict prescription, but rather a guide to inform local practice in each unique school setting. While the onion-like layers can create inconsistency and confusion, educators can find space within their practice to work and advocate for the benefit of their bilingual students. Johnson and Freeman (2010) note that ‘even within ostensibly restrictive language policies, there is often implementational space that local educators and language planners can work to their advantage’ (p. 14). Rather than utilize the notion of rote implementation, language policy appropriation (Levinson & Sutton, 2001) begins when local actors investigate the mandated guidelines for teaching.

Language policies (e.g. Bilingual Education Act, California’s Proposition 227) and legal precedents (e.g. Lau v. Nichols, Castaneda v. Pickard) guide the educational requirements and provide contexts for advocacy on the behalf of bilingual students (Wiley, 2001). Familiarity with broader policies enables educators to use a given policy as justification to seek approval and resources to support locally identified initiatives and practices. For example, school leaders can leverage policy requirements to foster inclusive reform for bilingual students and encourage community building and professional development (Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011). An administrator in the United States might use specific language from a piece of legislation, such as the seemingly rigid Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) which actually states the requirement for staff development and funding to increase the promotion of family and community participation.

When educators understand the language policies of the school context, they can find the implementational space to identify possibilities for promoting positive change. As Johnson and Freeman (2010) note ‘the line of power does not flow linearly from the pen of the policy’s signer to the choices of the teacher’ (p. 27). In the ample space between the layers of language policy and the practice carried out in classrooms, teachers have multiple opportunities to influence the policies and practices that directly impact bilingual students. Familiarity with local and national policies leads educators to a better understanding of the frameworks in which they work and provides greater leverage to advocate for bilingual students.

Recognize the linguistic needs at the school

Imploring educators to engage with the dilemmas facing schools, Valdés (2001) notes that ‘adequate policies and practices can only be implemented if policy makers, school administrators, and practitioners begin with a deep and clear understanding of the complexity of the issues surrounding the acquisition of English by minority youngsters’ (p. 9). In addition to knowledge of the policies that guide the education of bilingual students, local actors need a firm understanding of the issues related to second language instruction, assessment, and achievement, as well as the unique challenges of the school context.

The broad obstacles to the achievement of bilingual students are well-documented in the literature. Challenges that span across educational contexts include a) inappropriate testing and assessment (Abedi, 2007), b) inadequate teacher training (Gandara & Hopkins, 2010; Garcia et al., 2010), c) insufficient exposure to challenging academic content (Callahan, Wilkinson, & Muller, 2010; Olsen, 2010), d) deficit mentality (Valdés, 2001), e) curricular isolation (Callahan et al., 2010), f) poverty and familial stress (August & Hakuta, 1997; Suarez-Orozco, Suarez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008), and g) lack of appropriate curriculum, materials, and resources dedicated to educating bilingual students (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003; Olsen, 2010). Educators need to collaboratively discuss and investigate the issues that directly affect their practice and ability to meet the needs of their bilingual students. By recognizing and outlining the challenges faced within the unique school context, teachers can make decisions that are specifically grounded in local practice rather than broad policy.

Advocate for bilingual students

Educators who work directly with students are the most immediate advocates for bilingual pupils. A well-informed teacher – familiar with language policy guidelines and aware of the unique linguistic needs – can better advocate for classroom and program resources. Critical to instruction and advocacy, Faltis and Coulter (2008) explain that teachers need to develop a commitment in practice to question and redesign the local context and beyond, which begins with sound knowledge of policies that are the foundation of programs for bilingual students. Advocacy-minded educators can inform administration and colleagues of policies, research, and best practices to positively shape the educational experiences of bilingual students. For example, an understanding of the complexities and limitations of testing policies will enable educators to make better-informed decisions and advocate for local policy change if needed (Gándara & Baca, 2008). As local educators who work directly with students deepen their understanding of the web of regulatory policies, they can better use these policies, laws, and regulations as a lever to make positive change in schools (Table 2).

Table 2.

An urban district negotiates language policy and practice

Administrators in the School District of Philadelphia found that flexibility in the wording of a restrictive language policy allowed implementational space for the development of bilingual education. The district negotiated this space in national and state policy to launch a dual-language initiative that created language-planning teams, empowering educators in 10 elementary schools to develop localized programs adapted to their students and communities. The initiative encouraged an egalitarian discourse community of language policy developers in which educational researchers, administrators, and teachers worked together to develop programs promoting additive bilingualism (Johnson & Freeman, 2010).

With knowledge of language policies to guide and frame practice, paired with an evaluation of the broad challenges documented in research and the specific needs of unique school contexts, local educators can appropriate policy into effective and meaningful practice as a way to advocate for bilingual students. If teachers collaborate openly and regularly while bringing policy into their classrooms, the likelihood of effective practices being implemented will increase radically. When the implementational space is used to negotiate policy to match the needs of the local context, educators can then move forward to improve their work with bilingual students by defining the macro-level vision, mission, and culture of the school.

Lay the ideological groundwork for school change

A school’s vision, mission, and culture should invest all school actors – faculty, administration, parents, and students – created collectively from the bottom up to set goals for student learning that are grounded in individual school values (Miramontes, Nadeau, & Commins, 2011; Wrigley, 2000), such as the development of lifelong learners, global citizens, or social advocates. Ideological statements should describe what students will learn and do as a result of attending that particular school and target the student population and community (Villareal, 2007). Schools may opt for a formal language policy document (Johnson & Freeman, 2010) that reflects the vision and mission, as well as its adherence to policy requirements and regulations. Steps to build the school foundations include a) drafting a vision that incorporates linguistic diversity, b) defining a mission with goals to guide daily practice, and c) cultivating a culture of achievement and diversity. Vision statements serve as the commonly desired destination, and mission statements act as the step-by-step directions on how to arrive at that destination (Gabriel & Farmer, 2009).

Draft a vision that incorporates linguistic diversity

A school dedicated to improving the education of bilingual students should utilize an explicit lens on the appreciation and contribution of linguistic diversity to teaching and learning. By initiating a school-wide vision, stakeholders ground daily practice in the recognition and maintenance of a strong commitment to bilingual student achievement. When drafting or revising a school vision, pertinent elements include: a) an emphasis on the value of linguistic diversity (Miramontes et al., 2011), b) a description of how bilingual students will contribute to the school community (Faltis & Coulter, 2008; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008; Villareal, 2007), c) a sketch of how teachers will deliver the curriculum in a way that is culturally and linguistically responsive (Valdés, 2001; Villareal, 2007), and d) a statement in the native language of students and families (Waterman, 2006). With a vision that is decided upon by all stakeholders and is clear, concise, and easily remembered, a school’s programs and practices can then be assessed for their roles in getting to the envisioned destination.

Define a mission with goals to guide daily practice

The school vision serves as a springboard for stakeholders to jointly develop a mission for students’ social, cultural, linguistic and academic achievement (Horwitz et al., 2009; Miramontes et al., 2011; Wrigley, 2000). The act of creating common, unifying goals for a school that stretch across disciplines, grade levels, and learners can result in ‘swift, dramatic improvements in schools’ (Schmoker, 2011, p. 1). Similarly, schools whose bilingual students demonstrate substantial academic progress developed and communicated a unified vision of instructional reform (Horwitz et al., 2009). The mission statement must: a) define the school’s purpose, b) describe the school’s directions and functions, and c) outline the values and core competencies to help achieve the mission (Davis, Ruhe, Lee, & Rajadhyaksha, 2006) in clear and measurable language to enable monitoring and accountability (Boyle, 2010). At a linguistically responsive school, faculty utilize the mission statement to outline linguistic goals for students, which would ideally emphasize additive bilingualism (Miramontes et al., 2011) and encourage achievement in multiple languages or dialects (Siegel, 2006; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008).

The mission should reflect a shared responsibility of the school community (Wrigley, 2000, 2003). Every teacher, counselor, and administrator should feel the same sense of responsibility to meet the needs of every student, including bilingual students. Because the mission statement drives curriculum, instruction, and coherence of initiatives, staff members and community partners must participate in its creation; while this makes drafting the statement more laborious, the outcome will increase fidelity to the mission (Boyle, 2010; Gabriel & Farmer, 2009). Stakeholders must collectively find the words to align focus, invest them in the school community, and positively affect student achievement (Davis et al., 2007; Wrigley, 2000). Through developing explicit statements regarding the school’s mission for bilingual student achievement, educators gain a deeper understanding of themselves and their own personal perspectives of what it means to teach bilingual students (Miramontes et al., 2011). This active construction of goals and outcomes provides an opportunity for school actors to engage in meaningful collaboration to begin to cultivate a culture of achievement and diversity.

Cultivate a culture of achievement and diversity

School personnel play a critical role in creating educational environments that welcome, promote, and hold high expectations for bilingual student achievement (Wrigley, 2000). After defining the mission, faculty should implement practices for bilingual students to feel valued within the school. Rather than be the sole source of knowledge in the classroom, educators should enhance classroom learning through the integration of the cultural and linguistic funds of knowledge (Moll & Gonzalez, 1997) of students, families, and communities. In so doing, teachers ‘formulate a pedagogy specific to their situations and that builds strategically on the social relations and cultural resources of their school’s community’ (Moll & Gonzalez, 1997, p. 91). Students’ unique and dynamic experiences with cultures, languages and literacies are then conceptualized and utilized as beneficial resources, not deficits or barriers to learning.

Educators should begin by investigating the practices and resources at students’ homes to determine funds of knowledge (Moll & Gonzalez, 1997; Zentella, 2005). Examination of socialization practices can inform how students acquire and use cultural and linguistic practices within families and communities and how those skills might be utilized in schools (Heath, 1983; Zentella, 2005). Heath (1982) compared home and school discourse patterns for asking and answering questions; by recording and having students listen to their oral use of questions and statements, teachers supported the learning of unfamiliar classroom discourse to better communicate with teachers and classmates. Moll and Gonzalez (1997) describe a teacher’s qualitative study and discovery of families’ expertise in the medicinal use of plants and herbs; when designing a unit on plants, the teacher then incorporated lessons on how plants might be used to treat or cure certain illnesses. While no prescriptive method exists for connecting home lives to classroom pedagogy, these examples provide models for teachers on how to best utilize students’ funds of knowledge. If teachers are willing to open their classrooms to create opportunities for students and their families, a classroom community can become more culturally and linguistically responsive while also deepening rapport among students and teachers.

General guidelines for culturally relevant teaching (Gay, 2010) can help teachers create learning communities that value cultural and linguistic diversity, while simultaneously holding high expectations for achievement. A teacher with culturally relevant pedagogy helps students: a) make connections between the content being taught and students’ community, national, and global identities, b) work collaboratively in learning communities to teach one another, and c) develop necessary skills and maintain rigorous academic standards, while respecting diversity and individual differences (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Enacting culturally relevant pedagogy also requires that learning environments reflect the concept of hybridity (Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, & Tejeda, 1999) to bring together and embody multiple languages, worldviews, ways of reasoning, and roles for students (Lee, 2008). To build specifically on linguistic funds of knowledge, teachers can utilize the critical language awareness approach (Siegel, 2006); students’ languages and dialects become the medium-of-instruction to critically analyze the institutional demand for standard English (Lippi-Green, 1997) and build the collective identity associated with their linguistic community (Ogbu, 1999). Teachers can use these principles to reflect on the classroom created under their direction, as well as foster an environment where students are valued for the resources they bring to the learning community (Table 3).

Table 3.

A high school builds bilingual foundations

Founded by and for immigrants from the Dominican Republic, Gregorio Luperón High School in New York City prepares students to be leaders and scholars in English and Spanish. The bilingual program model pushes students to new academic heights, first in their native language, and later in English. Bilingualism is embodied by teachers and students, and students are encouraged to take New York’s Regents exams in either language as well (all but the required English Language exam). Another aspect of the school’s mission is to assist students in their transition to a new city and culture and to impart students with transferable skills so that they may succeed in any linguistic environment and truly be global citizens (Bartlett & García, 2011).

A school’s vision, mission, and culture should welcome, respect, and value bilingual students and their families. All school stakeholders, including administrators, classroom teachers, resource teachers, counselors, and advisors, must be involved in this process to collaboratively construct school structures and support systems that foster personal, social, cultural, linguistic, and academic success. Through collaboration and openness to the opinions of others, educators can begin to construct a more linguistically responsive school.

Build school structures and support systems

A school’s priorities, as determined and defined through its ideological statements, should be reflected in the physical, temporal, and curricular structures that drive daily practices. Without the necessary structures and supports in place, a school’s vision, mission, and culture are unlikely to manifest in the actions of teachers and students. Educators who aim to become more linguistically responsive should evaluate the school structure, systems and schedule and consider specific changes to support the social, cultural, linguistic, and academic growth of bilingual students.

Evaluate and align school structures and schedule

The overall structure of a school must reflect the ideological foundations of an inclusive learning community that celebrates linguistic diversity and student achievement. Research on bilingual students reveals that common impediments to school success include students’ lack of positive engagement, prevalence of social isolation, and lack of authentic access and use of the medium-of-instruction (Faltis & Coulter, 2008; Suarez Orozco et al., 2008; Valdés, 2001). To overcome challenges and create a positive and productive learning environment, bilingual students must be included in the larger school community, thus having opportunities for meaningful interaction with peers and teachers (Faltis & Coulter, 2008). This begins with the physical layout of the building, ensuring that bilingual students are not sequestered to one wing or classroom, but rather given access to the school and mainstream student body as a whole (Valdés, 2001). In addition, the inclusion of hallway displays to celebrate cultural and linguistic diversity should be present across the facility, such as flags that represent students’ countries of origin and banners in students’ native languages (Villareal, 2007).

The schedule represents the values that drive a school, such as the time allotted for common planning periods (DiMartino & Clarke, 2008). As school actors work together through common planning time to best support their students socially, emotionally, culturally, linguistically, and academically, classroom doors open for educators to engage in collaboration, observation, co-teaching, and professional development to reflect on and fine-tune practice (DiMartino & Clark, 2008; Villareal, 2007). This is particularly important for teachers of bilingual students, as learning communities and collaboration create a shared sense of belonging, and similar practices across settings take the guesswork out of school (Harklau, 1999). Finding time for school staff to collaborate around curricula, instructional practices, and contextual issues is unlikely to occur unless that time is set aside during the work day for that purpose. When scheduled successfully, common planning time allows teachers to share strategies, assess student work, and plan subsequent units. In addition to classroom teachers, counselors, support staff, and partners can be influential collaborators.

When a school’s master schedule is created, school leaders must create opportunities for teachers to make decisions based on student achievement data and needs (Oxley, 2007). To allow teachers to get to know students and their unique needs on a deeper level to make data-driven and well-informed decisions, schools can organize the larger school population through learning communities wherein teachers and counselors work with the same group of students over time, known as looping (Oxley, 2007). Looping fosters enduring rapport between students, teachers, families, and curriculums, which particularly benefits immigrant students’ adjustment to new school environments, educators, and peers (Haslinger, Kelly, & O’Lare, 1996). When bilingual students stay with the same teacher and peers for at least two years, they are more likely to take risks during second language acquisition and make greater social, linguistic and academic gains (Haslinger et al., 1996).

Organize social networks and relationships

Mentors and school-based relationships are integral to promote the success of bilingual students. Suarez-Orozco and colleagues (2008) state the importance of mentoring relationships to help maneuver obstacles typical to immigrants and diverse groups. In addition to support through new cultural and linguistic differences and challenges, mentors guide students through other school-based realities such as peer relationships, college entrance, and negative social pressures like gangs or substance abuse (Harklau, 1999). Overall, of keen importance is that every student has an adult mentor and advocate who guides and monitors progress through the holistic schooling experience to ensure that no student falls through the cracks. With every individual student matched strategically with an effective adult mentor, this longitudinal and targeted attention through relationships increases bilingual student achievement (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008).

The adult mentor can then match students with the appropriate social networks and resources to meet their unique social, cultural, linguistic, and academic needs (Gillies, Wilson, Soden, Gray, & McQueen, 2010). A home–school liaison teacher may be given release time from teaching or other duties to conduct home visits and identify and take steps to overcome barriers that impede school–family relationships or integration into the school community (Wrigley, 2000). Based on the anecdotal data collected by mentors, these networks may be grassroots efforts to meet the needs of immigrant students, such as weekly counseling groups for immigrants who have experienced traumatic situations or family separations, or after-school bilingual study sessions to help students with specific linguistic and academic needs (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008). In addition to targeted supports, social networks must also include opportunities for bilingual students to interact with peers in activities that match their interests, such as enrichment and extra-curricular programming after school hours (Faltis & Coulter, 2008; Wrigley, 2000). During school hours, strong social networks are fostered through strategic placement of students in advisory, resource, and elective classes to encourage social growth and personal connections and engage students in learning and school (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008; Valdés, 2001).

Target and scaffold language to support achievement

Longitudinal support through school-based relationships and social networks must be paired with the appropriate scaffolds to set students up for success in schools. Extensive studies of bilingual students have demonstrated the devastating lack of opportunities for movement and transitions between language programs and contexts (Callahan et al., 2010; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2010; Valdés, 2001). The term ‘ESL ghetto’ (Valdés, 2001, p. 145) is used to describe the low-level language track that is difficult to escape without a clear path and ample opportunities for students to advance to American mainstream content and classrooms (Valdés, 2001). When students are able to shed the label and move beyond language-specific instruction (Gutierrez & Orellana, 2006), the lack of transitions between language program models and contexts deters the rate of success in new academic settings (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008; Valdés, 2001); a second immigration occurs when students are moved into a new context (e.g. bilingual elementary setting to ESL middle school classroom) with no targeted transition or scaffolded language support (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008).

With these findings in mind, school actors must ensure that bilingual students: a) are held to high expectations for both linguistic proficiency and academic achievement, b) have clear pathways to move into rigorous content curriculum, and c) receive appropriate transitions through various program models. For example, if school personnel decide to utilize ESL classrooms to target English instruction for emergent language learners, teachers must set rigorous goals and expectations to guide the instruction that specifically sets up students for success in content and mainstream classrooms (Valdés, 2001). Cognizant of clear guidelines for language instruction, teachers must critically analyze the provided curriculum, textbooks, and materials to ensure that effective and meaningful teaching and learning is occurring (Crookes, 2010; Gulliver, 2010). Using portfolios and other formative classroom assessments can demonstrate student growth to guide this targeted and scaffolded linguistic support (Spinelli, 2008).

Plan and provide rigorous academic instruction

Daily instruction of bilingual students must not stop with language; students must have access to rigorous academic instruction (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008; Valdés, 2001). Many schools utilize sheltered instruction (Krashen, 1985, 1987) to allow students exposure to content while simultaneously scaffolding language. Originally defined as a way to make input comprehensible to students based on language proficiency (Krashen, 1987), the approach was operationalized to provide teachers with a variety of practical and flexible strategies (Echevarria, Short, & Vogt, 2011). Research on bilingual student achievement demonstrates the benefit of effective use of sheltered strategies, including a) a non-stressful atmosphere where risk-taking is encouraged (Horwitz et al., 2011), b) active learning contexts that provide frequent interaction and language use (Faltis & Coulter, 2008; Wrigley, 2000), c) real-world and relevant activities and materials (Toohey, 2000), d) technology use to support and enrich learning (Cummins, 2009), e) access to authentic English, including academic language and vocabulary (Cummins, 2000; Villareal, 2007), and f) use of students’ native language as a resource (Zentella, 2005). Overall, instruction for bilingual students is not watered down, but provides effective and authentic access to rigorous curriculum and concepts and holds high expectations for student academic achievement (Table 4).

Table 4.

A middle school builds responsive systems

John F. Kennedy Middle School in urban California provides language and content instruction to bilingual students. ESL teachers use authentic language and scaffold instruction to prepare students for success in mainstream classes. Sheltered content classes are rigorous, allowing students to access to the grade-level curriculum while also holding high expectations for academic achievement. Rather than segregate bilingual students within the school, there are frequent opportunities for them to engage in meaningful ways with mainstream peers, such as through the many extracurriculars offered after school. Teachers support bilingual students in a variety of ways, including targeted transitions between language programs, data tracking of attendance and grades, and bilingual counselors to mentor students and communicate with parents and families (Valdés, 2001).

School structures and systems are particularly important to build linguistically responsive schools; supports must mirror and help achieve the goals for bilingual students (Valdés, 2001). School actors must create structures and systems to support the vision and mission that stakeholders create, but the work does not stop there. In addition, schools cannot operate in a vacuum and must therefore align their school-based efforts with ongoing family and community initiatives to be successful (McCarty, 2003; Wrigley, 2000). Because school personnel are challenged to meet the unique needs of each student, opening a school’s doors to the external community maximizes the possibility of reaching the entire student body.

Foster collaborative communities of learners

In a community of learners, multiple stakeholders are involved in and dedicated to student achievement, and their varying expertise informs the process of improving schools for bilingual students. Creating the spaces, foundations, and structures described above requires the engagement of well-prepared educators, as well as the development of a broader community of learners that extends beyond school grounds. The kind of collaboration necessary moves beyond inviting community partners into schools; schools must fully and equitably engage partners in the change process to formulate relationships that support student achievement. To improve schools for bilingual students, a collaborative community of learners must include: a) teachers, b) community stakeholders, and c) parents and families.

Support school-based teacher dialogue and learning

Grounded in daily classroom practice, teachers need the knowledge and skills to support bilingual student achievement – conceptualized broadly beyond standardized test scores to include social, cultural, linguistic and academic growth and success (Wrigley, 2000). All school actors should have a strong base in theories, research, and pedagogy for teaching bilingual students, preferably having gone through the process of second language acquisition personally (Lucas et al., 2008) to relate to the plight of students in the process of learning the majority language (Bartlett & Garcia, 2011) and medium-of-instruction (Tsui & Tollefson, 2004). In addition to linguistic knowledge, educators need know pertinent social and cultural attributes that affect academic performance, such as prior schooling experiences in other countries (Farr & Barajas, 2005; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008) and specific familial expectations based on cultural and linguistic viewpoints (McCarty, 2002; Ogbu, 2002; Zentella, 2005), to open the classroom door to support each student as a whole person.

Once general knowledge on language teaching and learning is established, a school’s professional development time should model a community of learners and allow school actors to learn from one another. Instead of isolated, short-term trainings, teachers can collaborate in study groups to ground learning in the unique school context. Professional development sessions, supported by valuable localized knowledge (Moll & Gonzalez, 1997), are venues for teachers to identify cultural biases, critically examine communication with students and families, and engage in sustained interaction to develop mutually supportive relationships (Terrion, 2006). In study groups, teachers formulate specific strategies they might employ in the classroom (Thibodeau, 2008) and draw upon students’ cultural and linguistic resources to address students’ social and academic needs (Brooks, Adams, & Morita-Mullaney, 2010; Moll & Gonzalez, 1997). In addition, study groups combat teacher isolation (Brooks et al., 2010; Masuda, 2010; Musanti & Pence, 2010), promote sustained professional growth through dialogue (Crafton & Kaiser, 2011), and help teachers value a variety of social capital (Moll & Gonzalez, 1997) to positively influence the educational outcomes of bilingual students.

After building and utilizing internal capacities to improve practice for diverse learners, school actors need to recognize where external capacities would best suit the professional development of teachers and other staff. Schools must then seek out opportunities for community partners such as foundations, libraries, community centers, other schools, families, and universities, to share pertinent information with the faculty. When both internal and external stakeholders come together as a broader school community to create and engage in a targeted plan for growth together, the result of such bottom-up planning is higher involvement and engagement from all involved (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008). In addition to supporting teacher dialogue and learning, enlisting and engaging community actors improves schools for bilingual students (Wrigley, 2000).

Enlist and engage multiple community stakeholders

Schools benefit from building collaborative relationships with stakeholders in the community. Because time is such a precious commodity in schools, engaging external partners can be critical to ensure that all students’ needs are met. Suarez-Orozco and colleagues (2008) argue that ‘addressing immigrant families’ needs through partnerships among after-school groups, community organizations, schools, and churches would go a long way toward expanding these networks of supportive relations and easing the transition for these families’ (p. 87). When a learning community is composed of both the school and the larger community, and it is focused on the students, schools may be better equipped to engage students in their education.

The vision of an equitable learning community is one where teachers, administrators, parents, community leaders, university faculty, and others come together to support the learning of one another and commit to the collaborative effort to create change (Wrigley, 2000). Each stakeholder is an expert who contributes valued knowledge to promote the school’s mission, foster student learning, and improve education for the children in the community (McCarty, 2002; Miramontes et al., 2011). Through active involvement in school change, teachers, students, families, and others have a voice through community-based, bottom-up efforts (Cummins, 2000; McCarty, 2002). This places the responsibility for cultivating student learning on schools and communities, who then are not completely reliant on outside experts to direct the education of youth. To achieve a collaborative community, all stakeholders should be considered and invited into the school to share responsibility for student learning. Schools can conduct an asset inventory (Kretzman & McKnight, 1993) of the community and identify organizations they can partner with to support bilingual student achievement.

Mutually collaborate with parents and families

The pertinent two-way relationship between home and school must be mutually supportive (Wrigley, 2000). Families have valuable insights to inform educators about the linguistic and cultural resources that students bring to schools; when schools value local expertise and open the door to initiate positive communication, educators develop trusting relationships (Adams & Christenson, 2000; Zentella, 2005), increase parent involvement (Seitsinger, Felner, Brand, & Burns, 2008), and create a climate to ‘reflect critically on their teaching, take risks in enacting instructional reform, and act as agents of positive change’ (McCarty, 2003, p. 152). For schools to be a resource, teachers and other school staff must understand and respect home cultures and languages (Eberly, Joshi, & Konzal, 2007; Farr & Barajas, 2005; Farrell & Collier, 2010) and become a part of families’ social networks (Moll & Gonzalez, 1997). Once this occurs, a mutually supportive relationship will develop between schools and bilingual families.

With an equitable and respectful relationship established, school personnel can help families find the resources they need to support their children’s education. Teachers and other school actors have the potential to educate families about how to support bilingual student learning inside and outside of the classroom. For instance, schools can provide classes for parents on how to navigate the school system and prepare for college. An example of an effective initiative is the Parent School Partnership started by the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF, 2009) to help parents advocate for their children’s education. Schools can also create structures that encourage families to teach and advocate for one another, such as the development of a buddy system, where new families are paired with those who are well-established in the community. Each family helps its partner navigate the school system, communicate with teachers and administrators, and request support from school and community organizations. By building reciprocal relationships between schools and community organizations, families become aware of mentoring opportunities available to their children, and schools take advantage of organizations to mentor students and provide support (Gillies et al., 2010). Community involvement in school issues is integral, as schools can more effectively tap into the resources that are embedded in the surrounding area (Table 5).

Table 5.

An elementary school engages a community of learners

Supported by university faculty, teacher study groups in Arizona explored students’ funds of knowledge. One teacher learned through home visits that families sold candy from Mexico in the neighborhood. To utilize this expertise, she designed an instructional unit about candy. Students defined candy, which led to distinctions based on experience. They categorized and debated if items such as gum and seeds were candy; the teacher learned that many considered salty and spicy snacks to be candy. Students brought samples to investigate and compare the nutritional content of candy from the United States and Mexico. Students developed and administered surveys and graphed results on favorite candies. Families came to the classroom to share expertise, including a parent who was adept at making candies (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992).

When stakeholders collaborate to improve education for bilingual students, the well-being of the community becomes the central focus and opens the door to meaningful change (McCarty, 2002). All local actors must be willing to learn from one another to better serve youth in the classroom and beyond the school grounds (Lewis, 2008). In this way, the relationships between schools, families, and community partners must be characterized by mutualism (Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann, 2002), which includes a sense of shared purpose between school and community leaders, as well as room for the individual expression of each party. By thinking beyond the inclusion of educators in the change process, students, families and community members can exercise some control over schooling in their locality. The goal of education then becomes, as McCarty (2002) describes ‘cultivating the talents and resources of the community, fostering a sense of shared purpose and hope, creating a community around the school’ (p. 291). This community of learners, created around the school, can incite change to benefit bilingual students (Table 6).

Table 6.

Engaging multiple stakeholders in improving schools

Stakeholder	Action steps to improve schools for English learners
Administrator	✓ Provide an orientation for parents on how to navigate the school system.
	✓ Develop a buddy system to support families new to the community and school.
	✓ Implement study groups and invite families to be a part of professional development.
	✓ Conduct an asset inventory and identify resources available to assist schools and students.
Classroom teacher	✓ Engage in collaboration across the school to support bilingual student achievement.
	✓ Provide opportunities for parents to assist with projects, such as field-based research.
	✓ Invite parents to be language models and instructors for students in the classroom.
	✓ Talk with parents about how they can support students’ learning in the classroom.
	✓ Use a critical language awareness instructional approach in the classroom.
Resource	✓ Support bilingual students’ social, cultural, linguistic, and academic growth.
teacher	✓ Engage in constant collaboration with classroom teachers.
	✓ Facilitate professional development regarding the needs of bilingual students.
Librarian	✓ Ensure that texts are available to all students, including literature that is culturally relevant and written in students’ native languages.
	✓ Survey students for their interests and stock library with related texts and resources.
Counselor	✓ Ensure ample support of students transitioning from different schooling contexts.
	✓ Identify effective mentors in the school to partner with students who need support.
	✓ Provide support to immigrant parents to navigate the new and unknown school system.
Advisor	✓ Create and maintain a family-like climate among classrooms and learning communities.
	✓ Select activities to allow students to feel safe and share experiences and aspirations.
	✓ Build relationships with students’ families through regular phone calls and conferences.
Parent	✓ Offer modes of communication to your child’s teachers, counselor, and advisor.
	✓ Communicate frequently with school personnel.
	✓ Be proactive to engage in your child’s education and schooling.
University partner	✓ Reach out to schools and promote mutually beneficial relationships.
	✓ Help schools connect with community organizations to start pertinent and effective initiatives, such as mentoring programs for students.
Community member	✓ Reach out to schools to find out how your organization can assist and support the school mission, vision, and instructional plan for bilingual student achievement.

Conclusion

Linguistic diversity across the globe is a present and growing reality that must be conceptualized as both a strength and opportunity for meaningful and effective school change. With this article, we utilize the existing literature to give a broad and dynamic set of recommendations for stakeholders to begin building linguistically responsive schools. Because every setting has a unique context and population of bilingual students, educators should be empowered to utilize these steps to reflect and discuss practice to improve their schools. This is not a responsibility reserved for administrators or language teachers; all school personnel must take an active role in the social, cultural, linguistic and academic achievement of every student. In addition to collaboration among local actors, educators should open the school doors to share effective practices with the broader external community. When educators open classroom doors to collaborate with colleagues, families, and community members, they support and promote student achievement. We hope that readers utilize this article as a call to action to improve schools for bilingual students.

References

Abedi

(2007). English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice. Davis: University of California. Retrieved 3 January 2012, from http://www.cacompcenter.org/downloads/title_iii_elp_report.pdf.

Adams

K. S.

Christenson

S. L.

(2000). Trust and the family–school relationship examination of parent–teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 477–497.

August

Hakuta

(1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Banks

J. A.

(2007). Democratic citizenship education in multicultural societies. In Banks

J. A.

(Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 3–15). Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.

Banks

J. A.

(2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129–139.

Barth

R. S.

(1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bartlett

García

(2011). Additive schooling in subtractive times: Bilingual education and Dominican immigrant youth in the heights. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Boyle

M. J.

(2010). Monitoring the mission. Chicago, IL: Center for Catholic School Effectiveness.

Brooks

Adams

S. R.

Morita-Mullaney

(2010). Creating inclusive learning communities for ELL students: Transforming school principals’ perspectives. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 145–151.

10.

Callahan

Wilkinson

Muller

(2010). Academic achievement and course taking among language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 84–117.

11.

Crafton

Kaiser

(2011). The language of collaboration: Dialogue and identity in teacher professional development. Improving Schools, 14(2), 104–116.

12.

Crookes

(2010). The practicality and relevance of second language critical pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(3), 1–16.

13.

Crowther

Kaagan

Ferguson

Hann

(2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

14.

Cummins

(2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children caught in the crossfire. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

15.

Cummins

(2009). Engaging literacies: Harnessing technology tools for literacy engagement in multilingual classes. In Rolheiser

(Ed.), Partnerships for professional learning: Literacy and numeracy initiatives (pp. 15–24). Toronto: OISE Initial Teacher Education Program.

16.

Davis

D. H.

Ruhe

J. A.

Lee

Rajadhyaksha

(2007). Mission possible: Do school mission statements work? Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1), 99–110.

17.

DiMartino

Clark

J. H.

(2008). Personalizing the high school experience for each student. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

18.

Eberly

J. L.

Joshi

Konzal

(2007). Communicating with families across cultures: An investigation of teacher perceptions and practices. School Community Journal, 17(2), 7–26.

19.

Echevarría

Short

Vogt

(2011). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson.

20.

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(1), 87–106.

21.

Faltis

Coulter

(2008). Teaching English learners and immigrant students in secondary schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

22.

Farr

Barajas

(2005). Mexicanos in Chicago: Language ideology and identity. In Zentella

A. C.

(Ed.), Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 46–59). New York: Teachers College Press.

23.

Farrell

A. F.

Collier

M. A.

(2010). School personnel’s perceptions of family-school communication: A qualitative study. Improving Schools, 13(1), 4–20.

24.

Gabriel

J. G.

Farmer

P. C.

(2009). How to help your school thrive without breaking the bank. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved 3 January 2012, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/107042.aspx.

25.

Gándara

Baca

(2008). NCLB and California’s English language learners: The perfect storm. Language Policy, 7(3), 201–216.

26.

Gándara

Hopkins

(2010). The changing linguistic landscape of the United States. In Gandara

Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden language: Restrictive language policies (pp. 7–19). New York: Teachers College Press.

27.

Gándara

Rumberger

Maxwell-Jolly

Callahan

(2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved 3 January 2012, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/264.

28.

Garcia

Arias

B. M.

Harris-Murri

N. J.

Serna

(2010). Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 132–142.

29.

Gay

(2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

30.

Gillies

Wilson

Soden

Gray

McQueen

(2010). Capital, culture and community: Understanding school engagement in a challenging context. Improving Schools, 13(1), 21–38.

31.

Gulliver

(2010). Immigrant success stories in ESL textbooks. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly, 44(4), 725–745.

32.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Orellana

M. F.

(2006). The ‘problem’ of English learners: Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 502–507.

33.

Gutierrez

K. D.

Baquedano-Lopez

Tejeda

(1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture & Activity, 6(4), 286–303.

34.

Harklau

(1999). The ESL learning environment in secondary school. In Faltis

Wolfe

(Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, & ESL in the secondary school (pp. 42–60). New York: Teachers College Press.

35.

Haslinger

Kelly

O’Lare

(1996). Countering absenteeism, anonymity, and apathy. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 47–50.

36.

Heath

S. B.

(1982). Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In Spindler

(Ed.), Doing ethnography of schooling (pp. 102–131). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

37.

Heath

S. B.

(1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Heineke

A. J.

Cameron

(2012). Closing the classroom door and the achievement gap: Teach for America alumni teachers’ appropriation of Arizona language policy. Education and Urban Society. Published online before print 18 July 2011, doi: 10.1177/001312451141312310.1177/0013124511413123.

39.

Horwitz

Uro

Price-Baugh

Simon

Uzzell

Lewis

Casserly

(2009). Succeeding with English language learners: Lessons learned from the great city schools. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools. Retrieved 3 January 2012, from http://www.cgcs.org/publications/ELL_Report09.pdf.

40.

Johnson

D. C.

Freeman

(2010). Appropriating language policy on the local level: Working the spaces for bilingual education. In Menken

Garcia

(Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 13–31). New York: Routledge.

41.

Krashen

S. D.

(1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Prentice Hall.

42.

Krashen

S. D.

(1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York. Longman Inc.

43.

Kretzman

McKnight

(1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research.

44.

Ladson-Billings

(2009). The dream keepers: Successful teachers of African American Children (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

45.

Lee

C. D.

(2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 267–279.

46.

Levinson

B. A. U.

Sutton

(2001). Introduction: Policy as/in practice – A sociocultural approach to the study of educational policy. In Sutton

(Ed.), Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy (pp. 1–24). Westport, CT: Ablex Press.

47.

Lewis

(2008). Community connection and change: A different conceptualization of school leadership. Improving Schools, 11(3), 227–237.

48.

Lippi-Green

(1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge.

49.

Lucas

Villegas

A. M.

Freedson-Gonzalez

(2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.

50.

Masuda

A. M.

(2010). The teacher study group as a space for agency in an era of accountability and compliance. Teacher Development, 14(4), 467–481.

51.

McCarty

(2002). Between possibility and constraint: Indigenous language education, planning, and policy in the United States. In Tollefson

(Ed.), Language policy in education: Critical issues (pp. 285–307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

52.

McCarty

(2003). Revitalising indigenous languages in homogenising times. Comparative Education, 39(2), 147–163.

53.

Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF). (2009). Parent school partnership (PSP) program. Retrieved 3 January 2012, from http://www.maldef.org/leadership/programs/psp/index.html.

54.

Miramontes

Nadeau

Commins

(2011). Restructuring schools for linguistic diversity: Linking decision making to effective programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

55.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

Gonzalez

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

56.

Moll

L. C.

Gonzalez

(1997) Teachers as social scientists: Learning about culture from household research. In Hall

(Ed.), Race, ethnicity, and multiculturalism: Policy and practice (pp. 89–114). New York: Routledge.

57.

Musanti

S. I.

Pence

(2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 73–89.

58.

Ogbu

J. U.

(1999). Beyond language: Ebonics, proper English, and identity in a Black-American speech community. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 147–184.

59.

Olsen

(2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promises of educational opportunities for California’s long-term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.

60.

Oxley

(2007). Small learning communities: Implementing and deepening practice. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

61.

Ricento

T. K.

Hornberger

N. H.

(1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly, 30, 401–426.

62.

Schmoker

(2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

63.

Seigel

(2006). Language ideologies and the education of speakers of marginalized language varieties: Adopting a critical awareness approach. Language and Education, 17(2006), 157–174.

64.

Seitsinger

A. M.

Felner

R. D.

Brand

Burns

(2008). A large-scale examination of the nature and efficacy of teachers’ practices to engage parents: Assessment, parental contact, and student-level impact. Journal of School Psychology, 46(5), 477–505.

65.

Spinelli

C. G.

(2008). Addressing the issue of cultural and linguistic diversity and assessment: Informal evaluation measures for English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(1), 101–118.

66.

Suarez-Orozco

M. M.

Todorova

(2008). Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

67.

Terrion

J. L.

(2006). Building social capital in vulnerable families: Success markers of a school-based intervention program. Youth & Society, 38(2), 155–176.

68.

Theoharis

O’Toole

(2011). Leading inclusive ELL: Social justice leadership for English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(4), 646–688.

69.

Thibodeau

G. M.

(2008). A content literacy collaborative study group: High school teachers take charge of their professional learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 54–64.

70.

Toohey

(2000). Learning English in school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

71.

Tsui

A. B. M.

Tollefson

J. W.

(2004). The centrality of medium-of-instruction policy in sociopolitical processes. In Tollefson

J. W.

Tsui

A. B. M.

(Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: What agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

72.

Valdés

(2001). Learning and not learning English. New York: Teachers College Press.

73.

Villareal

(2007). Rethinking the education of English language learners: Transitional bilingual education programs. In Garcia

Baker

(Eds.), Bilingual education: An introductory reader (pp. 64–88). New York: Multilingual Matters.

74.

Waterman

(2006). Breaking down barriers, creating space: A guidebook for increasing collaboration between schools and parents of English language learners. Denver: Colorado Department of Education. Retrieved 3 January 2012, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/dl/ti_parents_ELLGdbk.pdf.

75.

Wiley

T. G.

(2001). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history of the U.S. context. In Tollefson

(Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 39–64). New York: Routledge.

76.

Wrigley

(2000). The power to learn: Stories of success in the education of Asian and other bilingual pupils. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books Limited.

77.

Wrigley

(2003). Schools of hope: A new agenda for school improvement. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books Limited.

78.

Wrigley

(2004). ‘School effectiveness’: The problem of reductionism. British Educational Research Journal, 3(2), 227–244.

79.

Zentella

A. C.

(2005). Introduction: Perspectives on language and literacy in Latino families and communities. In Zentella

A. C.

(Ed.), Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 1–12). New York: Teachers College Press.