The business meeting of the USD116 Board addressed many issues, but its focal point was, unmistakably, the report of the Spanish Dual Language (DL) program committee, which recommended to consolidate into one building the program, now spread over Leal and Dr. Williams schools, where it is colocated with the traditional, monolingual classes.
A shrewd administrator trying to do something unpopular has many options to choose from. One to emphatically avoid runs as follows:
- poll the population;
- when the results of the polling clearly show how unhappy the citizens are with the proposal,
- still push for the move,
- while telling the people that they simply don’t understand what they just voted on.
Which was exactly what the committee’s presentation said. To quote,
The survey data does not align with <our> recommendation.
ibid.
This is true.
However,<…> it was apparent that stakeholders were not fully aware of impacts changing the model would mean.
Amazing chutzpah… No wonder the people were enraged: the torrent of statements to the board, most of them from the parents opposing consolidation of the programs, lasted for an hour and a half. The proposal is deeply unpopular.
I mean, even the committee itself couldn’t muster a majority of votes in favor of the proposal. And this was a very carefully curated committee: monolingual families were not invited (because they just use the building to be appropriated by the consolidated DL program, and, I guess, merely fund it with their taxes too? who knows). While, say, Dr. Wiemelt, the boss of the DL program, was invited (as a voting member).
(Apropos of nothing, Dr. Wiemelt’s new position was just recently created, within the Multilingual Program, atop of that future principal of the consolidated DL building… Oh, org charts, their unsung beauty: little rectangles neatly occupied by those Doctors in Educational Leadership. I wonder how come we don’t have funds to retain our bilingual teachers, with so many talented administrators to support them…)
But I digressed.
In the face of adversity, the administration decided to treat the restive populace with contempt, and just ignore what the disgruntled disruptors have to say. One might think the administration is certain that in the end they will get what they want, – Spanish Dual Language program consolidated in one building.
And, quite probably, they might be correct.
The ur-reason for their power is the original sin of the USD116’s DL program: it was sold as something different to different constituencies, enabling clever administrators to strategically leverage this ambiguity.
To the middle class parents enrolling their kids to DL classes they sold a free enrichment program, starting in kindergarten, with the extra benefit of the warm feeling of doing something multicultural, and, probably, even fighting racism in some way. This is a good deal.
To the immigrant families they sold the promise of fast integration and educational equity. This is a great deal! And the real way to fight systemic injustice, if you run the program well.
But the thing is, these are two different deals. One can see this quite clearly in the two descriptions of the program goals on the district’s site. The left one clearly appeals to the middle class parents: creativity and problem solving! marketability in a multilingual society! The right one promises quantifiable educational equity (and positive behaviors, whatever this means).
The goals of the dual language program is for students to develop high-levels of proficiency in both Spanish or French and in English. The benefits of bilingualism allow for creativity and problem solving, greater cross-cultural understanding, and marketability for future college and career goals in a bilingual and multilingual society.
Dual Language program page
• All students will develop high levels of proficiency in two languages.
Dual Language program presentation
• Academic performance for students from both language backgrounds will be at or above grade level by the end of 12th grade
• All students will demonstrate positive cross-cultural attitudes and behaviors.
Now, when you sell the same item to two customers, conflicts often arise. Education researchers, by the way, are well aware of the dangers here, – to quote from aptly titled The gentrification of two-way dual language programs: a commentary,
<…there are> many ways that good educational policies can be subverted, either through direct actions or by the failure to remain vigilant of the social justice intentions of the policies. Two-way bilingual programs (in which half the students speak English and the other half speak another language at home) hold the promise of a “win–win” situation in which both groups come to know and support each other in becoming fluent bilinguals. <…> However, the authors of these articles point to a number of ways in which these programs can become instances of “win-lose.”
P. Gandara, Language Policy (2021) 20:525–530
The free immersion wing of DL program in our district seems to be doing OK (not great, sure, but not catastrophic). But what about the educational equity component?
The truth is, we have no idea (but, see here). The committee, with characteristic swagger, told us that on one hand, “<h>istorically, State assessments have not provided sufficient accommodations for emergent bilingual students, especially for newcomer students“, and on the other hand, “<a>s the DL Committee continues to plan during the 2022-2023 school year, we will have the opportunity to look at more longitudinal assessment data from the last ten years.” In other words, no, we don’t have the data, but yes, we do, and didn’t bother to look at them thus far, but we will.
Comrades! of course they do have the data, – during the meeting Dr. Wiemelt told that many students of the first DL program cohort are now in the UHS, and so their academic performance can be easily assessed. Why the administration doesn’t want anyone to look a it, one can only hypothesize. One hypothesis would be they are just too humble to boast about the stellar results of their students. Who knows?
It goes without saying that the data-driven approach to educational equity is absolutely quintessential. The study by Collier and Thomas, foundational for the modern DL programs (and cited in our own DL program presentation) depends critically on the actual performance data (and not on the narratives and focus groups responses). By withholding hard, quantitative data it gathers, the USD116 administration makes sure that the equitable achievements they love to talk about are as material as Trump’s truthful hyperboles.
But however vacuous equity claims of the DL administrators are, it didn’t stop Director Riccioni and Dr. Wiemelt from using them as a cudgel against the middle class parents complaining about loss of their neighborhood schools. It’s not about you or your children, – they boldly stated, – it’s about the immigrant kids. And who has the guts to contest that?
Left-right, right-left, leverage this, sell that. How familiar.
So, given the conflicting thrusts, – enraged parents against the unbridled arrogance of the administration, – what did the Board decide?
You could’ve guessed it, – nothing. They were dared by the Superintendent to vote no on the recommendation of the committee, shutting the project down. But that would make the administration very sad. So the Board shied away from the challenge.
After that, the only alternative left for them was to let the committee continue its work.
And that’s where the strategic ambiguity kicks in again. The DL committee will interpret the implicit permission as an explicit mandate and will start planning, assessing needs and developing org charts. Come November, the Board will be presented with the fait accompli: a detailed consolidation plan which they will be again shamed into accepting. For they did let the committee do all its hard work, and the rejection of the plan would be so so sad. The Board’s majority will go for it, because what else can be done?
This is, dear Urbana dwellers, what expects you this Fall, as surely as Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Whatever you think, it is the Board that interacts with the administration on your behalf. Reflecting your preferences. Addressing your concerns.
Don’t they do it marvelously?