DOCUMENT RESUME ED 240 855 FL 014 231 AUTHOR Elford,.George; Wovdford, Protase TITLE A Study of Bilingual Instructional Practices in Nonpublic Schools. Final Report. INSTITUTION Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J. SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE Dec 82 CONTRACT 400-81-0040 NOTE 228p. PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC10 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Bilingual Education Programs; *Educational Policy; w6 LY Elementary Secondary Education; Financial Support; Government Role; Language Attitudes; Literature Reviews; National Surveys; *nrivate Schools; Program Descriptions; *Second Language Instruction; *Teaching Methods ABSTRACT A study of bilingual education programs and policies in private and parochial schools in the United States was undertaken to determine whether these schools' were using their potential for development of instructional techniques. Bilingual education programs were broadly defined to include transitional, maintenance, or other programs in English and /or native languages for children of minority language backgrounds not proficient in English. Also included were non-English language programs for children who may or may not be -proficient in English. The process included (1) a review.of the literature, convening of an advisory committee, and, preparation of a descriptive brochure; (2) a search for programs, including nominations from organizations, idea sessions with nonpublic school educators, andfollowup.monitoring; and (3) site visits to the programs. Thisprocess is outlined and findings are presented in the form of site 7isit profiles, general findings, and specific conclusions. PoliCy issues discussed include language values, conditions for developing new instructional practices, private schools as a governmental-category, private values and public aid, negativism about bilingual education, and integration ini private schools. It is concluded that although language training in these schools' may reflect the state of the art, it is not influencing important breakthroughs in techniques or methods. The private schools studied appear to attract students as much for the values associated with private schools as for the benefits of the langUage programs. (MSE) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** A STUDY OF BILINGUAL INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS 4 Submitted to U.S. Department of Education National Institute of Education 1 Washington, D.C. 20208 1 December, 1982 Final Report . A.J3 AA.4 -- -2;. ""s-14 1 34) v-i dlorgt "feporveigit*Aiii tug"' '"'" wk."1.van so.,4tuott,,tite 1204,4 let 11.416.*14+43, 40 0 .16-01106 *k .4 .Dlt otetr., 1311.3.04k kav,k . a., tot /..e 006 -s.,V11 itAmp* 64t eet% wow. 101%4At*" atas At .0,%0 104 1e 074 t 1.7411m. OW3 Ikis 4.11k e16 6*Irate% Ilk I Pinti;# 0.0 11.$A4i et I 164:167A.N 0344ilikelt,t1. 61;16OtattiPtt 0 . ja t.414 tti4046. At-T.* 441kag it Joko IF ei loll -66- satplat-qa 0 4 Alfiltel. 7.*.66 A 1 ...004# e. Axle te.tle-101.Um%I etieta t hick*. r 1 4.1 .sii.v LA...1v&..94v1Ai. -) trarkVrimt 4a4c.13U11 Ant ..... 4.k bt 9 ItOfilik.r**443E Lxvr,AgiLitru. tat-130A Inn 106 Atn.6f . wit A IA VT i 10.a )44444,,ti, oli le %./". A 1. 4 140, 0 1.4!tlitg 141/1 .01....r.3 +44w 1.4.,,..**.j.7,A4 A A 0,...44.s tie P464 IA iik Aoe rrttel-,64171,14 V* V %It Vett_ fLt POW. 4.4.114114040:44e-Ft\A} biko Its It6H1611Lk4hiltifillytttpt girisi tiefp 10i es.4114 'OW41taI smakijilat _,.1 Ilkal tiltirASkab li 4 ..4ea91-44*.t st,.4( ril Zie ,110 its* wit «.rra k 4 44 gats * AtZttegi N 6,1FIIATS, t. e 4 " '- r# -.- %V `I It e i 64.14.4046W Npitlsittikr444 ue NI k_e est fte6 ftto h1.11 Zit 3 kas AA Aps ill IA likAtImIS .4, ti41 Kt as MI Vitt It Ilark 3 hortlia,, k MP., 04 feklittiT WI Tes Ft 4 00. Jcp .4.0*. & 0" rwrie.e.r. M *yr U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDULATJUNAl. eisOumcEs INFORMATION FNT re 'ERIC' 1 It..5,j, n how.00.111011. ,14 M,f..valhon.the per yo 01 001.0,0.000 0Ope 0.,01 .1 Moen.II some, to.mre been 0..$kto .0/wow. mkood.0 1.td.oldv Poo t, stow Of Nee100, 0,11...6 Ito% dor 0 0. 0110 001 to, eVelely represento04 441 P +IT ulndo00 $3011y 4 .1 _ 4 Final Report Contract Numbers 400-81-0040 A STUDY OF BILINGUAL INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS AI Submitted to: U.S. Department of Education National Institute of Education Washington, DC 20208 December, 1982 By George Elford, Project Director Protase Woodford, Project Director Educational Testing Service Princeton, New Jersey 08541 The report herein was prepared pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Department of Education. Contractors undertaking such projects under government sponiorship are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official Department of Education position or policy. 3 ABSTRACT CONTRACT: (400810040 PROJECT TITLE: A STUDY OP BILINGUAL INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS:George Elford Protase Woodford EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE PRINCETON, N.J.N,98541 PURPOSE: This project was undertaken in response to.the growing importance of nonpublic schools in U.S education and the evidence of numerous and varied language learning programs offered by these scpools; Given the positive environment for learning in private schools and the relative freedom from regulation and bureaucratic supervision enjoyed:by principals and teachers,. it was assumed that norIFIBflo schools would be a fertile field for the developments of new techniques and practices in bilingual instruction. This project was one'dt a series of studies addressing the research agenda establiihed by the ESEA Title VII, Part C Research Coordinating Committee. At the outset of this project, according to the proposal request, the term "bilingual education programs" was brbadly defined to include programs (transitional, maintenance, or otherwise) in English and/or native languages for dhildren from minority language backgrounds who are mot profi- cient in English, as well as programs conducted in non-English languages for children who may or map not be proficient in English. PROCEDURES: The activities of the project included: 1) pLeparatory activites which included the initial review of the literature, the convening of an Advisory Committee, and the preparation of a descriptive brochure; 2) scan- ning activities which included nominations from organizations, idea-sharing sessions with nonpublic school educators, and follow-up monitoring; 3) site visits( and 4) report preparation. The questions pursued in the site visits were determined by the vari- ables that were assumed to be of significance in bilingual instruction in nonpublic schools. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The language trainingin these private, schools at best reflects filo state of the art but is not the locus of important breakthroughs in techniques or methods. These (full-time) private schools, as a rule, were established and continue to attract patrons as much for the values associated with pri- vate or parochial schooling as for the benefits dertved from the language program. w". With the exception of special language schools like the Stoles Silingues and. the Washington international School,private schools were not effective in developing genuinely bilingual graduates without strong suppoKt from use of the target language at home. Bilingual services offered by nonpublic schools tended to follow patterns related to different categories of schools, puch as parochial, Hebrew, and independent schools. In language training, decisions about teaching methods and materials are left to theteachers, who 'donot have available the kinds of support services available in most public schools. Federal aid forinstruction to these private schools was chiefly from .(old) Title I and Title IV (Library); there was very limited involvement with 1/ Title VII. The following werehe conclusions warranted by the project. 1. The principal contributionof nonpublic schoolsto bilingualin- struction and language learning comes from the value or importance some of these schools assign to language learning-4nd not from innovative techniques and methods. and (2) Bilingual instruction.is an important feature of a few specialized private schools; involvement with bilingual instruction, however, is not a characteristic of most full-time private schools. 1 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This projectwas completed as a result of the friendly cooperation of a 1. large number of people who deserve a'word of recognition and thanks. All of the members ofthe Advisory Committee 'deserve thanks for their valuable .contributions. Robert Smith deserves special mention for his interest and helpfulness:Tracy Gray who represented Richard Tucker also was helpful both 11 directly by her comments and indirectly by the review of the literature that she and her colleagues prepared for another project. This review was relied upon extensively in this repor t. Msgr. Meyers and members of the NCEA. 11 took' an active interest inthis project that proved especially helpful. The more than 100 private school representatives who took the time to participate in this project made the project possible.The gracious coopera tion from the staffs at the site visit schools was especially appreciated by the project directors and field staff. The,ETS field staff's cooperation and professionalism enabledthe projectto efficiently cover sitesin every part of the country. This field staff included Dr. Frank Romero (West), Rose Payan (West), Dr. Val. Flores (Southwest), Deborah Moses (South), Ines Bosworth 1 (Midwest), Ihor Vynnytsky and Karyn Storti (Northeast). ETS support staff, Annie Picard, Iris Greeley, and Joan Ryan deserve thanks for their work with the day to day tasks of the project. Lorraine Buchbinder, as a research assistant, offered valuable assistance in the compilation of data and the ?reparation of the directory of participating schools.