Educational Action Research Vol. 18, No.

2, June 2010, 197212

Implementing a Spanish for Heritage Speakers course in an English-only state: a collaborative critical teacher action research study
Marilee Coles-Ritchiea* and Jennifer Lugob
aWestminster
REAC_A_474628.sgm Taylor and Francis mcoles-ritchie@westminstercollege.edu MarileeColes-Ritchie 0 200000June 2010 18 Taylor 2010 & Francis Original Article 0965-0792 Action Research Educational(print)/1747-5074 10.1080/09650791003741061(online)

College, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; bLogan High School, Logan, Utah, USA

(Received 13 October 2008; final version received 10 November 2009) This paper explores how critical teacher action research (CTAR) supported the process of developing and implementing a Spanish for Heritage Speakers (SHS) course in a high school, notwithstanding a low percentage of heritage language learners. The purpose of the paper was to explore how a teacher was able to navigate the secondary school structure, community/national Discourse, and her own classroom pedagogy to implement the SHS course. Data collection included teacher and teacher-educator-researcher journals, classroom observations, school board minutes, and student course work. These data were coded and analyzed into phases that represent the teachers process of developing and implementing the course. Data demonstrated that this teachers changing practice and involvement in program development were influenced by: her experiences with her students and her desire to provide more effective instruction for them; her enrollment in teacher education courses at the university; decisions by the administration; and discourses prevalent in the school and community/nation. Data suggested that teachers, school and district administrators, teacher-educators, and families in the community all played significant supporting roles in the effort to create a successful heritage language course at the secondary level. By focusing on outcome, a critical aspect of CTAR, the teacher and teacher-educator worked collaboratively to change classroom practices and curriculum in this secondary school to better support heritage Spanish speakers. Unlike some teacher action research projects that focus only on teacher classrooms or teacher education institutions, this collaborative research project generated recommendations for secondary teachers and administrators as well as teacher-training institutions. These include the importance of administrative support, community involvement, framing language as social and dynamic, and course development in teacher development programs to teach heritage languages. Keywords: secondary schools; language programs; critical action research; heritage language learners; English learners; Discourse

Introduction Addressing the quality of education for children who speak languages other than English is essential in school reform (Gutierrez et al. 2002; Miniccuui and Olsen 1992). Within this group, some students are identified as heritage language learners (HLLs). Hornberger and Wang (2008) provide a more fluid definition of HLLs in the US context, which is: individuals who have familial or ancestral ties to a particular
*Corresponding author. Email: mcoles-ritchie@westminstercollege.edu
ISSN 0965-0792 print/ISSN 1747-5074 online 2010 Educational Action Research DOI: 10.1080/09650791003741061 http://www.informaworld.com

198

M. Coles-Ritchie and J. Lugo

language that is not English and who exert their agency in determining whether or not they are HLLs of that Heritage Language (2008, 27). Therefore, HLLs include students who speak English predominantly but have families that speak Spanish at home, students who speak both English and Spanish at home, and dominant Spanishspeaking immigrant students who speak Spanish at home and who want to be identified as an HLL. As such, these students have unique and abundant resources as well as needs. Webb and Miller explain that many heritage language students are:
proficient in their language in ways that foreign language learners, and sometimes even their foreign language teachers, are not and may never be. At the same time, they may have gaps in the knowledge of their heritage languages that foreign language learners may not have, and these gaps prevent them from performing certain kinds of communicative tasks, reading and writing in particular. (2000, 97)

The amazing resources and unique needs HLLs bring to the classroom require teachers and administrators within the secondary school setting to restructure and develop programs that highlight their strengths while developing academic reading and writing. This study illuminates the structural issues and discourses that impact on the development of a Spanish for Heritage Speakers (SHS) course within the context of a secondary school. In this paper, we (Marilee, teacher-educator; and Jennifer, high school Spanish teacher) describe and analyze the data gathered through critical teacher action research (CTAR) (Atweh, Kemmis, and Weeks 1998; Tripp 1990; McNiff and Whitehead 2006). We use action research as a tool for advocacy and implementation of an SHS course in a high school, notwithstanding a low percentage of HLLs. During this process of change, we faced many hurdles as we introduced, developed, and finally implemented a SHS course. This project began with the intention of meeting the needs of HLLs pedagogically, but we discovered that one of the critical issues in reform involved reacting to and interacting with the national/community discourse surrounding language learning policy that was prevalent as we began our efforts. As stated by Byrnes, teachers and students speaking languages other than English:
spend much time negotiating the pushes and pulls, the options and orderings, the privileges and pains inherent in those realities, all the while leaving largely uncontested the ideological claims, administrative practices, resource allocations, and even modes of enforcement of the monolingual modern state that provided the larger context for their educational practices. (Byrnes 2003, 87)

As researchers, we encountered many of these pushes and pulls in our effort to finally plan for and submit the SHS course in the course schedule. To begin with, we present our conceptual framework and describe our methodology, including implementation of action research, data collection and analysis. Next, we share our findings and discussion by explaining the process of implementing the SHS course. Finally, by combining these experiences and perspectives on implementing language planning from the bottom up, we present a number of theoretical, pedagogical and policy implications and recommendations. Conceptual framework To understand the process of this action research project, we draw upon conceptual frameworks of critical Discourse (Gee 1990) and funds of knowledge (Gonzalez,

Educational Action Research

199

Moll, and Amanti 2005). We begin with a definition of English-only Discourse and how it operates within the school and community/nation critically. In addition, we explain the importance of students funds of knowledge, specifically linguistic knowledge into the school program for Spanish-speaking immigrants. Finally, we explore the complexity of implementing change in the secondary school structure. English-only Discourse News media, local conversation, state educational policies, as well as current federal education policy described through the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) are rampant with the discourse of English-only (Wiley and Wright 2004). Title III Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students replaced the Bilingual Education Act so that the word bilingual no longer appears in the legislation. Absent also are descriptions of any benefits of bilingual education and bilingualism (Wright 2007). Tucker observes the absurdity of pervasive monolingualism in the United States:
I find it to be an enduring paradox of American life and American Education that bilingualism, becoming bilingual, and the encouragement of innovative language education programs within the core or basic curriculum of public education are so often viewed as problematic, difficult and undesirable. (2008, 39)

Indeed, the Discourse of English-only permeates the landscape of education for those who speak languages other than English. In this paper, we define Discourse as language that is used within and through various contexts, including social, cultural, textual, political and historical. Language is a tool used not only to communicate information, but also to support social activities, social identities and affiliations within communities and institutions. Discourse in this sense describes the way relationships get mediated by language through the persons that use the texts, words and signs. We use both the notion of big D and small d discourses to understand the process of implementing the SHS course. Some Discourses are circulated to such a degree that they are rendered normal or natural, while others are rendered marginal or even deviant. Because of the way English-only Discourses are circulated within this context, it is surprising that teachers are able to insert counter-discourses to allow for the preservation and development of other languages within the school context. This is an example of how larger political discourses are situated in this local context (Street 2004), and how we were able at times to negotiate these discourses to create the SHS course.

Funds of knowledge Because students who speak languages other than English are often described from a deficit perspective, we choose to use the funds of knowledge concept in our efforts to adapt and develop the English as a second language (ESL) program within the high school so as to highlight the strengths these students bring. Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti (2005) describe funds of knowledge as a way of conceptualizing households as repositories of knowledge that are borne out of social networks. These funds of knowledge can be activated by teachers in classrooms as they develop curricula to draw upon these dynamic pedagogical resources. As a teacher-educator, Marilee

200

M. Coles-Ritchie and J. Lugo

encouraged teachers to draw on their students funds of knowledge, specifically linguistic knowledge, which is often stifled as immigrant students enter secondary schools. Initiating change within the secondary school structure The literature on secondary school programs that facilitate the development of language for heritage speakers is limited, especially in rural or mid-size towns where there has been a steady increase of Latino students (Bo-Yuen Ngai 2002; Faltis and Wolfe 1999). Most secondary schools are prime examples of the difficulty individuals face when attempting to create change because of the patterns of segregation in content area specialization, bureaucracy and the difficulty of setting aside the time necessary to engage in the emotions and investment of the school staff (Hargreaves 1996). Although teachers can be important agents of change within the school system, the focus on them as individual agents of change is problematic. Along with Bartolom and Balderrama (2001), we propose that teachers beliefs and attitudes cannot be separated from worldviews that are part of dominant Discourses. We agree, as Buendia (2000) argued in his article about power relations, that most teacher education studies frame teachers as psychological/individual or from: a pedagogical discourse that views students along the lines of innate, individualized, cognitive framings (i.e., cognitive and behavior disorders, intellectual talents) that strip away any sense of a social and economic backdrop (2000, 148). In this paper, we find that Discourses and events come into play in the practice and discourse of teachers. Like Buendia, we see the structural elements as critical to understanding the influences that guided this teachers practices and discourses as she worked to influence change in the schools language program for heritage Spanish speakers. Jennifer found in the process of promoting and implementing a Spanish for heritage speakers (SHS) course that she began aligning herself with different discourses, which we call teachers discursive realignment (Coles-Ritchie 2009). Research design The data presented in this study are part of a larger three-year longitudinal ethnographic study that explored the ways four teachers negotiated Discourses in an effort to create a more effective program for English learners (ELs) in the high school where they taught. This paper focused on one element of that programmatic change; the implementation of a SHS course. Two central research questions emerged to guide this study: (1) In what ways do pedagogical decisions in SHS classrooms necessitate a shift in ones discursive alignment? (2) How and in what ways were a teacher-educator and Spanish language teacher able to navigate the secondary school structure to implement an SHS course by applying CTAR? Data collection and procedures The foundation of teacher action research is to develop understanding of how adaptation and change in action and practice can collectively benefit a community of learners

Educational Action Research

201

(McNiff and Whitehead 2006; Mills 2003). In our study, we explore how certain Discourses enabled and constrained our ability to address a need for a marginalized population within a school (Karp 2003). Therefore, we combined ideas from Mill (2003), Tripp (1990), and Atweh, Kemmis, and Weeks (1998) to create a theory for our research, which we call critical teacher action research (CTAR). We describe the elements of our study that are supported by the CTAR framework: participation, direction, consciousness, constraints and outcomes (Tripp 1990). First, participation of researchers with similar goals and working contexts contributes to the effectiveness of CTAR. As researchers in this study, we identify ourselves as, first, Jennifer, a mixed-heritage, Mexican-American/white middle-class woman, who taught high school Spanish for five years and was completing her masters in second language acquisition at the local university when the study began. Even though she was raised by a Spanish-speaking father, she learned Spanish as an adult. Marilee is a white middle-class woman, who taught courses in multicultural education, language acquisition and methods courses at the same university. In our study, we were both interested in opening up spaces for heritage language speakers to continue to develop their Spanish language academically and to connect socially as a group in the high school, although we took on different roles based on our positions. Secondly, CTAR needs to have direction. By this we mean that the research has a purpose to improve a certain context. In this action study, the local high school administration, university faculty and teachers wanted to develop a program for ELs that supported them more effectively academically and socially, but Jennifer took the lead in directing the change. Using our insider/outsider knowledge as both a teachereducator and language teacher in the school, we were able to contribute to the overall goals of expanding and improving the ESL program. Thirdly, consciousness needs to be explored. What were the embedded values each of the participants had concerning aspirations, ideologies, practices and discourses about program models and bilingualism? Through this aspect of CTAR, both Jennifer and Marilee reflected in writing and discussion throughout the process of creating this change individually and in groups of other teachers and administration. Fourthly, CTAR requires that the researcher determine the constraints of their project. Glaser and Strauss (1967) call these material (numbers of students, time, working space) and conceptual features (performance, acceptable community practices). In our study, the constraints included class scheduling, finances, standardized assessments and wider monolingual Discourses. Finally, outcomes are an important aspect of CTAR. By using CTAR, we were committed to developing a course in the newly constructed ESL program that would be instrumental in pushing away current socially unjust practices. In other words, CTAR must initiate action that can help improve the school practices that disadvantage certain groups of students. In our project, the outcome goal was for Jennifer, who had a deep understanding of the local practices and community knowledge, to research, propose and develop an SHS course that would expand the educational growth of immigrant Spanish speakers. In addition, another desired outcome was equipping the teachers to be able to confront some of the national/community Discourse (Gee 1990) that emphasized English-only, with new Discourse that included the importance of bilingualism through developing and maintaining the heritage language for Spanish speakers. The data were collected and analyzed by both researchers. As the teachereducator, Marilee drew upon field notes of classroom observations, school board

202

M. Coles-Ritchie and J. Lugo

notes, student records, and email correspondence. Marilee shared those data with Jennifer, and we worked together to analyze the data and develop emerging themes. Jennifer shared her reflections and journal entries (written in italics) and we organized them into phases to illustrate the process of presenting, planning and implementing the SHS course. Each phase includes reflections from papers for coursework, journal entries, or email correspondence that help explain Jennifers journey, as well as an analysis of how these reflections interact with the larger issues of Discourse about English-only, teachers ability to enact change, and negotiation of secondary school structures. Research context Lincoln High School is located in Bonneville, a town of 43,000 and a hub for the surrounding agricultural region. Utah census data reported 90% of the population claimed white ethnicity, and 8% claimed Hispanic/Latino ethnicity at the time of the study. The county struggled with transitions from its agrarian roots to an environment of industry, commerce and development. Recent immigrants to the region (predominantly Latino/Latinas of Mexican descent) found employment primarily in small factories, and commercial and home construction. Like many states in the United States, the western state where this study takes place also passed an English as the Official Language law in 2000. This initiative relied on public discourse common in other states across the nation. Similarly to other states, the Discourses circulating in this state include Discourses about language such as: English unites the country while multilingualism divides it; once immigrants are in the United States they should learn English; immigrants are not learning English; immigrants need motivation to learn English (Tse 2001). Similar to many Spanish-speaking students in the United States, the HLLs in Lincoln School District faced serious educational challenges. In 1998/99, at Lincoln High School, secondary students not classified as ESL students had grade point averages of 3.0 out of 4.0; in contrast, students classified as ESL students had grade point averages of 1.3 out of 4.0. In the core content courses, more than 55% of students classified as ESL students received a D or F grade. The dropout/pushout rates for secondary students correlated to the enrollment growth of ELs. As the EL population increased at the school, their dropout/pushout rate also increased. In this context, Jennifer began her efforts to create classes to support the HLLs in her school. The SHS classes she developed and implemented were part of the high schools ESL program. Two classes were formed with primarily immigrant students from Mexico, El Salvador, and Argentina. Most students in these classes had interrupted schooling in their Spanish-speaking countries, some had consistent public schooling until the time of emigration, and one student, whose parents were working on doctorate degrees at the local university, had rigorous formal schooling. Therefore, the classes were formed with a wide variety of student backgrounds in formal schooling in Spanish. Findings and analysis Phase 1: I didnt know that In one of the courses Jennifer took for her masters in second language teaching degree, she was asked to reflect on the process she experienced when attempting to

Educational Action Research

203

implement a SHS course. Jennifer began this reflection by exploring her reasons for deciding to promote a SHS course. She explains the desire to reform her teaching and curriculum to meet the needs of SHS in her high schools modern language program:
In the past four years, I have had a number of native Spanish speakers in my Spanish language classrooms. In all my [pre-service] training as a [secondary] Spanish teacher, I dont remember any specific instruction about how to meet the needs of these students. Because of large class sizes and lack of time to work with individual students, I expected all my students to do the same work, learn the same information, and take the same tests. I tried a variety of things to help the situation [of heritage Spanish speakers]; I transferred students into upper-level Spanish classes when possible and I involved them in teaching the class about the language and culture. Even with those accommodations, I knew I wasnt being a very effective teacher for them.

In Jennifers reflection, she notes that her pre-service secondary education program for her modern language teaching major did not address the need for teaching SHS. Therefore, we infer that she was not able to draw on methods or research from previous course work to make adjustments to her lesson planning or curriculum. Secondly, she confessed to planning lessons to meet the average student in her class due to large class size. By giving all the students the same work, same information, same tests, Jennifer was able to survive as a teacher amid the large number of students. Even though she made efforts to remedy the situation for HLLs by transferring the students into upper-level Spanish classes and involving them in teaching the class about language and culture, she knew that she wasnt being a very effective teacher for them. She tried to fit the students into an existing structure, but the result was not meeting the needs of the students. Phase 2: is this a possibility here? Within the Modern Languages Department where Jennifer worked, there were six courses in Spanish including Spanish Levels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (independent literature course), and Advanced Placement Spanish (personal communication, February 2008). All of the courses offered were designed primarily for native English-speaking students. She laments:
I had often wished there was a Spanish class just for native Spanish speakers. However, I had never heard of such an idea, so I dismissed the thought and returned to teaching [my Heritage Spanish Speakers] the best way I could.

Not only did Jennifer not receive instruction and methods for teaching heritage speakers of Spanish in her pre-service education coursework, various ideas for models of language teaching were not discussed. As she continued her work in the high school setting, models for supporting HLLs were not available from the district administration. Part of the problem was that the district coordinator for language programs did not have a background in second-language acquisition or bilingual programs. As is often the case in structuring bilingual courses, the administration in schools lack the research and expertise necessary to develop effective courses in heritage languages, which puts enormous pressure on individual teachers with full teaching loads (Genesee et al. 2006). In this case, the Spanish language teacher was left with an inadequate curriculum for meeting heritage language speakers needs.

204

M. Coles-Ritchie and J. Lugo

Phase 3: research and observation gave me ideas to create change After teaching for two years, Jennifer decided to get a masters degree in second language teaching from the local university. She took courses in the Languages and Philosophy Department and the Elementary/Secondary Education Departments.
During my research for classes in the Masters in Second Language Teaching program, I ran by a few articles in professional journals that addressed the topic of teaching Spanish to Native speakers. The idea intrigued me. I asked a professor from the education program to enlighten me about this possibility and she told me of the real possibility of starting a Spanish for Native Speakers (SNS) class. While in a subsequent class she taught, we took a field trip to [a larger town an hour away] to observe classes in the high school where I observed a real SNS class. I enjoyed my time observing and spoke with the teacher afterwards. I could see that the students in that class felt affirmed in their individual languages and cultures. The students were reading The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. Each student took turns reading. They discussed specific cultural practices in the reading such as what children say in both English and Spanish when they jump rope.

This reflection demonstrates the value of reading and research in a masters-level program for teaching. By reading about SHS classes, Jennifer was able to understand the rationale for SHS courses and how they were implemented in other settings. By travelling to a nearby school and observing a SHS course, she began to visualize a SHS class in her local school context. The observation gave her the impression that the students were engaged in a way that her students had not been. They were also able to compare and contrast linguistic nuances of the languages they use within everyday social practices such as jumping rope, which added to the relevance of the class. Jennifer began to align herself with Discourses that included restructuring a program to highlight the cultural and linguistics backgrounds of her students that affirmed their languages and cultures. The Discourse of Latinos, bringing linguistic assets and knowledge to the school setting, countered many of the Discourses I heard from teachers and administrators at Cherry High School (field notes, April 2002). Jennifer had to make a decision to counter that deficit Discourse of Latinos in the school by describing her alignment with practices that acknowledged these strengths. Phase 4: knowing how to ignite change in the secondary schools Unlike many teachers in the system, Jennifer had experience with the politics and organization of the secondary school structure. She writes:
I studied the laws affecting language instruction and the history that perpetuated them. I read how wars affected people who spoke different languages and which laws were affected. I was particularly impressed with the history of the Navajo code talkers during WWII. The enemies could spy on us because they knew our language. The United States needed a way to communicate with each other in a language known by a small number of people. Thanks to the Navajo speakers we were able to develop an unbreakable code. After that, the government saw the need to fund language programs at a higher level. In addition, Ive been involved with the political aspects of education for two years and really come to a better understanding of why schools function the way they do. As Ive served in the leadership of the teachers organization, we met different representatives from each school. They would communicate their successes and challenges. We would meet with our superintendent once a month to discuss needs. I listened carefully to what the superintendent said the teachers needed to do to change things. I also reported at

Educational Action Research

205

every school board meeting and came to develop relationships with board members. I really came to a better understanding of why schools function the way they do and learned how to initiate change in current practices.

Jennifer often heard the discussion that bilingualism and bilingual education focused on the ability to speak a language, rather than the ability to read and write in a language. The questions often asked were: If children come from Spanish-speaking families, why do they need to study Spanish at school? Wont they learn it at home? Just as English is cultivated through the studying of literature and writing processes at school, Spanish needs the same cultivation through studying Spanish literature and practice in writing narrative and expository forms. While she understood the rationale for continued study of SHS through readings and discussion in university classrooms, she saw that some school administrators, many teachers, and the district superintendent did not. Once she had identified this disconnect, she decided to learn about the political structures of schools and what teachers needed to do to negotiate those structures to ignite change. At the time Jennifer wanted to make changes, Dr Chuck Jackson was the principal and Bill Henson was one of the assistant principals, both of whom happened to be former Spanish teachers who had some experience in teaching ELs. A number of teachers were getting ESL endorsements at the local university paid for by a US Department of Education, Bilingual Education: Training for All Teachers Grant. Jennifer reported:
Most of us were horrified when we started looking into the ESL program at [Lincoln High School]. Many teachers were frustrated that most of the Latino/a students didnt have a lot of reading and writing skills. [Another Spanish teacher] and I knew how hard it was to have SHS in our Spanish I and II. We also had a couple of kids that were hard to place because they werent literate in their native language. I had done research and learned in the MSLT [Masters of Second Language Teaching] program that its tons easier to teach skills in the L1 and then we could teach transfer skills. So, I presented this information to [Chuck] informally and he agreed with me. Turns out that he had started thinking of how we could re-vamp our ESL program and an SNS class fit right in with his plans. I think had we had a principal who wasnt versed in Spanish and ESL training, it would have been much harder. [The principal] presented it to the district secondary curriculum director who also liked it. Combine this with the fact that we had just been put under review by the OCR and needed a plan. So, the district was scrambling and we happened to offer this suggestion of the ESL changes, including a [Spanish for heritage speakers] class. The district was ecstatic that we had a plan and ESL-endorsed teachers to implement it.

As discussed by Shohamy (2003, 2006), Jennifer experienced a top-down approach to language education policies by her school district and high school administration. She had presented a bottom-up initiative that contradicted much of the district administrative discourse about ELs, but fortunately, in this case, the local high school administration leaders and the teacher, Jennifer, aligned themselves with similar curriculum vision and Discourse about language that included the benefits of continued maintenance in the students heritage language. In addition, the federal agency Office of Civil Rights (OCR), another top-down agency, was pushing for change to happen at this high school. The push for a curriculum to better address the students needs was definitely a catalyst for change, although the teacher and the local administration, not the OCR, impacted the direction for change. The OCR does not promote bilingual education programs over ESL

206

M. Coles-Ritchie and J. Lugo

programs, especially under the current administration. The main question asked by the OCR was:
Is the educational approach chosen by the district recognized as a sound approach by experts in the field, or recognized as a legitimate educational strategy to ensure that ELL students acquire English language proficiency and are provided meaningful access to the educational program? (US Department of Education 2008)

The goal, stated in this question, is to achieve English-language proficiency, not heritage-language proficiency. Many administrators that are not familiar with secondlanguage acquisition theory do not acknowledge that developing a students reading and writing in their heritage language will increase their ability to read and write well in English for success in mainstream classes (August and Hakuta 1997; Collier 1995; Cummins 1981, 2001; Garcia 1991; Thomas and Collier 2002; and others). Faltis and Wolfe propose the definition of, academic language [as a] set of discourse practices within the various content area classes that students need to acquire in order to participate successfully in mainstream schooling (1999, 274). By expanding the definition of academic language to a set of discourse practices that enable students to succeed in school, academic language becomes much more than a register. The complexity of teaching heritage languages is apparent here. Not all of the students had the same background or experience in Spanish. Some had formal schooling in Spanish, while others had interrupted schooling in Spanish or attended school in the United States in English. Therefore, they had experience speaking Spanish at home but did not have experience with formal school Spanish. As defined by Hornberger and Wang (2008), HHLs are composed of a complex and varied group that need a program flexible enough to meet their diverse backgrounds. Phase 5: planning the class As a result of her university-based coursework, Jennifer recognized that she needed to develop her academic Spanish language ability to be able to talk about concepts in writing and literature. She also knew the pedagogy of the class working with HLL was going to be very different to the pedagogy she used when teaching English-speaking students Spanish. She shares some of her concerns:
I was nervous to start planning the class. What did I know about teaching native speakers of Spanish? I hadnt learned how to do that in the university. I had worked so hard to get it passed and hadnt really thought about what I would actually do once I had the class! I took 2 major steps: One, I went to Costa Rica to study in a language program. In Heredia, there were two of us in the language class and in Monte Verde I had a teacher all to myself. I drilled them on how they taught Spanish to the students in Costa Rica they seemed to focus on literature, reading, and writing. It sounded a lot like the English classes I had taken. Second, after the three weeks in Costa Rica, I came home and called a couple of English teacher friends.

Jennifer had to show incredible initiative to get the information and knowledge she needed to adequately plan her SHS class. She states in her journal that she was nervous to start planning the class because teaching Spanish to heritage speakers was not a part of her formal teacher education course work. As a way to prepare for this new endeavor, she researched a Spanish language program outside of the country where she could study in depth about Spanish literature and develop vocabulary for

Educational Action Research

207

use in an academic Spanish classroom. She invested time and money so that she could attend a program in Costa Rica during her summer break. Part of her discovery was that the Spanish classes she took in Costa Rica were very similar to how English courses were taught in the United States. Specifically, the students read literature and wrote about those experiences. Jennifers experience in Costa Rica not only helped support her own growth in the Spanish language, but it also gave her an opportunity to inquire from teachers in a Spanish-speaking country about the methods they used to teach the dominant language. As a heritage language teacher, she learned that she would need to be a teacher of language, literature, and writing. This would help provide important aspects of education missing from the high school curriculum for ELs as their ESL courses focused more on functional language skills. They were not currently taking classes to develop higher-order thinking skills and reading and writing development as beginning and intermediate ELs. Jennifer writes:
I know the ESL kids were missing out on the experiences from the mainstream English classes. I knew [Native English Speakers] read The Giver in 10 th grade, and I had a copy in Spanish. I got a copy of all the assignments, and set out to translate them. I know there were important themes in these assignments. Such as: How to write a thesis statement in your introduction, support your arguments, cite your references, and write a conclusion that sums up your arguments. Peer review was something else I thought would be useful. I really had no clue that only one of my students had heard the word thesis before and most had no clue about how to write an organized paper. Since the state was talking about writing a test that the students would have to pass before they could graduate. I felt the class definitely needed a writing emphasis.

Recognition of these key components of learning was ignored in the current system. Students were not getting full access to the academic skills they needed to develop their reading and writing because these components were not taught in their ESL classes and they were not in mainstream English classes where these components are integral in the curriculum. While many of the HLLs spoke English fluently, they had not had opportunities to develop their academic reading and writing in the form of organized papers and critical thinking about literature forms. The previous ESL courses that they attended did not challenge them in English as beginning learners. Another key factor Jennifer addresses is the need to prepare these HLLs for the high school qualifying test so that they could graduate. She decided that the class definitely needed a writing emphasis so that the students would have guided practice on organized writing. Not passing a high school writing test could possibly mean the HLLs would not have opportunities for higher education. Phase 6: implementation After a tremendous amount of time spent educating local administration, personal investment studying and understanding how to teach a heritage language, and curriculum development, Jennifer was ready to begin teaching heritage speakers of Spanish. She reflects:
We (a group of teachers taking ESL endorsement coursework at the university) originally wanted a class of beginners and a more advanced group. It turned out to be harder than we thought. Scheduling didnt always work like it did in our minds. The students were placed where there was room in their schedule and so there were beginning and

208

M. Coles-Ritchie and J. Lugo

advanced Spanish speakers in both of the classes. Also, I ended up teaching both classes at the same time. The first year of teaching this class was great. There were only eight students in each class, and they were really nice. We read and wrote and struggled with concepts. At parent teacher conferences one mom mentioned that her mother who had written letters back and forth with her grandson had commented that Juan spelled better than he did before. He wrote accents when he was supposed to, used paragraphs, and more vocabulary. I wanted more heritage speakers to experience this, not just the ESL students, but it took a while to make that change.

Jennifers commitment to these classes is evident in this reflection. Although the scheduling provided problems, she pushed forward to make the classes work. As a university professor working with the school on ESL programming issues, I visited this class often. The students were completely involved in the process of learning in Spanish. They were engaged in higher-level thinking that pushed beyond what they could access in English only. Jennifer also notes that a grandparent could see the improvement in her grandsons language development, in the language that she holds close to her, in a language that she calls her own. This kind of connection is rare when the parents of the children do not speak the language the children are using in school. The following excerpt from my field notes illustrates the excitement for learning that was initiated due to the implementation of this course. Jennifer and her students were working on syllable recognition by counting syllables in classic Spanish poetry. I describe the atmosphere and my reactions:
One student gets so excited when he gets the number right that he gets out of his seat and jumps up and down, turns a circle and raises his hands in the air while shouting, Yeah! I imagine the students feel pride as they are tackling advanced literature. It is exciting to see these students engaged in challenging curriculum after observing them in the ESL class that focuses on basic communication skills. Didnt some of the other teachers say that these same students: Jorge, Pedro, Gabriella and David wouldnt participate in class activities? Werent these students described as uninterested, unmotivated, and even lazy? Could these be the same students? (Field notes, 5 April 2002)

Jennifer engaged the students in challenging work that drew upon their funds of knowledge and connected them to academic work at school. She countered the deficit discourse she heard from other teachers that labeled these same engaged students as uninterested, unmotivated, and even lazy. This journey was quite remarkable and relied on a teachers changing practice and involvement in program development that were influenced by her experience with HLLs and her desire to provide more effective instruction for them, her higher education experience, decisions by the administration, and Discourses prevalent in the school and community/nation. Conclusion and recommendations By engaging in CTAR, we are informed of the complexity of constructing and implementing a SHS class within the secondary school setting, especially in an Englishonly state. We recognized that many structures and resources needed to be in place for

Educational Action Research

209

the course to be developed and conducted in ways that supported the HLLs, beyond what an individual teacher could accomplish. Through critical engagement, reflection and data analysis, we have identified significant recommendations that could benefit other teachers and administrators in secondary school contexts that would also like to implement a course for HLLs. Our findings demonstrate that teachers, school administrators, district administrators, teacher educators, and families in the community all play important roles of support when creating successful HL courses at the secondary level. Firstly, teacher education institutions need to develop and offer courses that deal directly with issues of teaching heritage languages in addition to the traditional language teaching courses that only deal with non-native speakers of the languages. In such courses, pre-service teachers could read about successful programs that encourage heritage language development, discuss methods for teaching heritage languages, develop curriculum and materials, and discuss ways to confront prevailing discourse in the school and community that favor English-only instruction. Secondly, within teacher education institutions and in school settings, Spanish language teachers need to develop a greater awareness of how the Spanish language is used in various social, cultural and historical contexts. Many times, teachers erroneously discuss the most correct Spanish as being Spanish spoken in Spain or that speaking Spanglish automatically demonstrates less proficiency in a language (Makoni and Trudell 2006; Zentella 1997). As Gutierrez discusses:
Teachers need to be made aware that heritage speakers are not simply imperfect speakers of Spanish who have fallen short of the monolingual norm. They are, rather, complex persons who are fundamentally different from monolinguals. Unlike monolingual speakers of Spanish from societies in which Spanish is the sole or primary language, bilingual United States Latinos and Latinas are members of speech communities in which a single language does not meet all their communicative needs. I feel current and aspiring teachers of Spanish need an introduction to language awareness I mean awareness of how languages and dialects are used in real-life social contexts, that is, how Spanish is spoken in the real world and, more important, why it is spoken as such. (1997, 35)

We would encourage discussing and reading about issues of language as a means of gaining this awareness in in-service teacher study groups, and in undergraduate/ graduate education courses about language. Because dominant discourses about language often describe the concept of language as static, it is important that teachers study language as dialogic (Bahktin 1981) and language as inventive and coconstructed (Makoni and Pennycook 2006). Also, we would encourage discussion about how language is used to produce, maintain, and change social relations of power, especially within the secondary school structure in regard to education for HLLs. Thirdly, through CTAR, teachers and administrators can find ways to recognize and infuse funds of knowledge, and the program and curriculum for HLLs can be constructed to better facilitate students growth. Most language teachers recognize the language resources these students bring, and they often rely on these students as tutors for their English-speaking students who are learning a second language. But students who emigrate from other countries also bring other resources that are sometimes ignored, as teachers are often required to assess what they do not know rather than what they do know. At the beginning of the paper, we share comments from teachers who described HLLs as uninterested, unmotivated, and even lazy. Space for Discourse that highlights students strengths rather than deficits needs to occur, possibly through teacher discussion groups and/or in-service training. The school

210

M. Coles-Ritchie and J. Lugo

would benefit from all teachers and administrators acknowledging both the amazing resources these children bring to the school, in addition to the potential they have when given the opportunity to learn in their heritage language. Fourthly, administration support for the development and implementation of the courses and how they fit into the program for ELs is essential. Without the backing of the high school principal, Jennifer would not have been able to develop and teach the SHS course. Because this places extra time and effort on the shoulders of teachers already pressed for time, restructuring should occur. As Carreira (2007, 163) suggests, Fulfilling [the task of reaching Latino/Latina students] will require a reconfiguration of SNS teaching practices and curricula as well as a reconceptualization of the role of SNS teachers. By restructuring and supporting teachers so that they have time for telephone calls, home visits, and taking language classes, teachers might have more desire to engage in this work. This requires an administration that understands and agrees with the basic tenets of developing a students heritage language. Fifthly, community involvement is a necessary element of any programmatic change in schools. In this case, more school community and local community investment would have enhanced the implementation and planning of the SNS course. Within the framework of a university course, Jennifer researched and wrote a proposal and submitted it to the principal. This required her to research methods and curriculum beyond university course requirements. She also invested time and money in travelling to a Spanish-language-dominant country where she enrolled in a course to learn more about literary terms and writing in Spanish. Many teachers would not have the means or time to commit to this. It might have benefited Jennifer and the students if more teachers had been involved in the planning of the course, to create buy-in. Also, Spanish-speaking parents and community members could have played a stronger role in the development of the course and served as community experts as suggested by the funds of knowledge literature (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti 2005). By engaging in CTAR, Jennifer was able to navigate the difficult secondary education structure and prevalent community/national Discourse to ultimately implement a SHS course in her high school. Through research and collaboration between Marilee at one institution and Jennifer at the high school, we were able to adapt and change the practice of teaching heritage Spanish speakers to better support their learning. References
Atweh, B., S. Kemmis, and P. Weeks, eds. 1998. Action research in practice: Partnership for social justice in education. London: Routledge. August, D., and K. Hakuta. 1997. Improving schooling for language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bahktin, M.M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bartolom, L., and M.V. Balderrama. 2001. The need for educators with political and ideological clarity: Providing our children with the best. In The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students, ed. M. de la Reyes and J.J. Halcon, 4864. New York: Teachers College Press. Bo-Yuen Ngai, P. 2002. Bilingual education for all: A benefits model for small towns. Bilingual Research Journal 26, no. 2: 21338. Buendia, E. 2000. Power and possibility: the construction of a pedagogical practice. Teaching and Teacher Education 16, no. 2: 14763. Byrnes, H. 2003. Perspectives: Implications of language education policies for language study in schools and universities. The Modern Language Journal 87, no. 2: 58797.

Educational Action Research

211

Carreira, M. 2007. Spanish-for-native-speaker matters: Narrowing the Latino achievement gap through spanish language instruction. Heritage Language Journal 5, no. 1: 14771. Coles-Ritchie, M. 2009. Inciting change in secondary English language programs: The case of Cherry High School. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Collier, V.P. 1995. Acquiring a second language for school. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. 1981. The role of primary language developments in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, ed. California State Department of Education, 349. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California State University. Cummins, J. 2001. Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. 2nd ed. Ontario, CA: California Association of Bilingual Education. Faltis, C., and P. Wolfe. 1999. So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism and ESL in the secondary school. New York: Teachers College Press. Garcia, E. 1991. Effective instruction for language minority students: The teacher. Journal of Education 173, no. 2: 13042. Gee, J. 1990. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York: Falmer Press. Genesee, F., K. Lindholm-Leary, W.M. Saunders, and D. Christian, eds. 2006. Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing. Gonzalez, N., L. Moll, and C. Amanti. 2005. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gutierrez, J. 1997. Teaching Spanish as a heritage language: A case for language awareness. ADFL-Bulletin 29, no. 1: 336. Gutierrez, K., J. Asato, M. Pacheco, L. Moll, K. Olson, E. Horng, R. Ruiz, E. Garcia, and T.L. McCarty. 2002. Sounding American: The consequences of new reforms on English language learners. Reading Research Quarterly 37, no. 3: 32843. Hargreaves, A. 1996. Revisiting voice. Educational Researcher 25, no. 1: 129. Hornberger, N., and S.C. Wang. 2008. Who are our heritage language learners? Identity and biliteracy in heritage language education in the United States. In Heritage Language education: A new field emerging, ed. D. Brinton, O. Kagan, and S. Bauckus, 337. New York: Routledge. Karp, S. 2003. Let them eat tests: NCLB and federal educational policy. In Rethinking school reform: Views from the classroom, ed. L. Christensen and S. Karp, 199212. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Publication. Makoni, S., and A.D. Pennycook. 2005. Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal 2, no. 3: 13756. Makoni, S., and B. Trudell. 2006. Complementary and conflicting discourses of linguistic diversity: Implications for language planning. Per Linguam 22, no. 2: 1428. McNiff, J., and J. Whitehead. 2006. All you need to know about action research. London: Sage. Mills, G. 2003. Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. Minicucci, C., and L. Olsen. 1992. Programs for secondary limited English proficient students: A California study. Focus Occasional Paper No. 5. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Shohamy, E. 2003. Implications of language education policies for language study in schools and universities. The Modern Language Journal 87, no. 2: 27886. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge. Street, B. 2004. Futures of the ethnography of literacy? Language and Education 18, no. 4: 32630. Thomas, W., and V. Collier. 2002. A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students long-term academic achievement, September 1. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Final Reports. http://repositories.cdlib.org/crede/finalrpts/1_1_final. Tripp, D. 1990. Socially critical action research. Theory into Practice XXIX, no. 3: 15866.

212

M. Coles-Ritchie and J. Lugo

Tse, L. 2001. Why dont they learn English? Separating fact from fallacy in the U.S. language debates. New York: Teachers College Press. Tucker, G.R. 2008. Learning other languages: The case for promoting bilingualism within our educational system. In Heritage Language education: A new field emerging, ed. D. Brinton, O. Kagan, and S. Bauckus, 3952. New York: Routledge. US Department of Education. 2008. Office of Civil Rights. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/ list/ocr/ell/planoutline.html (accessed May 18, 2008). Webb, J.B., and B.L. Miller. 2000. Teaching heritage language learners: Voices from the classroom. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Wiley, T.G., and W.E. Wright. 2004. Against the undertow: The politics of language instruction in the United States. Educational Policy 18, no. 1: 14268. Wright, W. 2007. Heritage Language Programs in the era of English-only and No Child Left Behind. Heritage Language Journal 5, no. 1: 126. Zentella, A.C. 1997. Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Oxford: Blackwell.

Copyright of Educational Action Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.