Past failures to provide appropriate education for Latino language minority students have had adverse outcomes. A 40% dropout rate and failure to achieve basic literacy skills have left much of this population entrapped in a cycle of failure and poverty. To improve academic achievement and reduce the number of students dropping out, a problem-based approach can be implemented to provide opportunities for reflective thinking and collaborative inquiry. Such an approach is useful in developing students' skills and confidence toward change while helping teachers understand students' learning styles and needs. In addition, a problem-based approach can enhance the teachers' capacity to analyze what occurs in the classroom. This approach requires universities and schools to work together in collaborative partnerships to develop the capacity for innovation and to create better learning environments for students.  

This Spotlight presents findings on the implementation of a professional development model focusing on language and literacy development that was implemented in partnership with a neighboring university in five elementary schools (K-3) with large Latino populations. School and university faculty collaborated to provide primary teachers of language minority students with opportunities to: (a) design and implement innovative language-based opportunities; and (b) advance their skills and understanding of teaching and learning. A comprehensive language arts program integrating oral language with reading and writing through center-based learning was employed.  

PROCEDURES 

Five elementary schools from a large urban school district in Southern California, each largely comprised of Latino populations living at or below the poverty level, received a full year of ongoing university support for participating school faculty. Twenty-five teachers participated in classroom visitations and had 10 hours of professional development focused on developing knowledge and skills for integrating instructional elements into their comprehensive language arts programs. Instructional elements included: (a) reading aloud to children; (b) shared book experience; (c) language experience (children's oral language recorded and written); (d) sustained silent reading and writing; (e) guided reading; (f) individualized reading; (g) modeled writing; (h) children's writing; (i) opportunities for sharing (reading and writing); and (j) content area integration/follow-through. Faculty then met with teachers to facilitate and support their classroom reorganization, creating center-based learning centers to encourage implementation.  

Teachers implemented the program at their own pace. Within the first 6 months, most classrooms had introduced guided reading and daily individualized conferencing in writing. In all of the classrooms, children's literature became the basis from which many reading, writing, and English as a Second Language (ESL) lessons flowed. By the second semester, some classrooms began integrating other content areas into activity centers and were devoting increased amounts of time to reading and writing.  

RESULTS 

Both quantitative and qualitative data sources were used to examine changes in professional behavior and student growth. Quantitative data showed significant gains in the development of an integrated reading/language arts program from the inception of the program to the end of the school year. Data also indicated teachers' increased sense of effectiveness of teaching practices.  

Results from the qualitative analysis showed similar significant results over the first year of the program. Over two-thirds of the teachers had incorporated at least five elements of the program within the first 6 months. By the end of the school year, all 25 teachers were implementing between 4 and 10 elements (see Table at end).

In identifying noticeable changes in teaching effectiveness and student achievement, three emergent themes were noted: professional behavior, student performance, and barriers to professional development. Subcategories of each of these emergent themes were also identified, and are outlined below.  

Professional Behavior 

Collegiality: Teachers emphasized the increase in collegial interaction and formation of peer teams.  

Teaching Practices: Significant changes were made in curricula focus and instructional activities, including increased time spent on individualized reading and writing. 

Professional Growth: Teachers noted advances in their understanding 
of learning processes as well as a growing awareness of a variety of 
approaches and materials for language arts instruction. 

Student Performance  

Accelerated Learning: Students who entered classrooms with few skills and significantly behind peers appeared to substantially benefit from the individual conferencing in the writing and reading centers.  

Motivation: Students reluctant to read or write in the beginning of the year due to low skills became enthusiastic once they began experiencing success.  

Social Skills: Students gained confidence, developed skills for relating to peers, and became leaders in the center-based environment.  

Retention/Referrals to Special Education: Students who exhibited behaviors that would have led to retention or referral to special education in previous years, seemed to thrive in the restructured classrooms.

Professional Development  

District Barriers: (a) the district vacillated between a traditional ten-month calendar and a year-round calendar; (b) tensions developed between the teachers' unions and the school district due to difficult contract negotiations; and (c) a contract allowing teachers, by seniority, to choose the grade they would teach the following school year gave no consideration to the integrity of ongoing innovative programs or teacher participation programs.  

School Barriers: (a) reassignment of administrators to new schools resulted in temporary disruption in coordination between projects schools and the university; (b) a schoolwide class roster reorganization 20 days into the school year to equalize the class size resulted in some teacher and student reassignments without consideration for project participation; (c) continuous enrollment of new students into demonstration classrooms throughout the school year requiring teacher time to orient new students as well as assess their skill levels; and (d) past frustrations with implementing reforms resulted in teacher reluctance to participate.  

Process Barriers: (a) limited administrative participation in training due to busy schedules resulted in a lack of understanding of and support for program and teachers needs; (b) lack of opportunity to train classroom aides limited their participation in the reading and writing centers; (c) competition and conflicts with other innovative programs were implemented in the schools; and (d) fear of negatively impacting achievement test scores and resistance to acknowledging the ineffectiveness of "old habits" slowed the adoption of the new instructional practices by some project teachers.  

University Barriers: (a) faculty members struggled to establish a role for themselves as a partner/collaborator with teachers rather than as an 
"expert"; (b) faculty time for involvement in the five schools was limited due to university obligations; and (c) university administrators narrowly viewed the program as a grant partnership, providing no additional support in terms of release time or financial resources.  

DISCUSSION 

Many language minority students need better help than they now are 
receiving. The flexible, individualized approach to professional development 
described above can provide teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to understand how language minority students learn and to create opportunities to produce language and literacy achievement. 

In the professional development model described above, the university's role as catalyst provided the supportive infrastructure for teacher change and led to benefits for the university as well. Faculty members increased their understanding and knowledge of "real world" problems facing today's teachers which led to greater integration of the university's mission to train teachers and the "real world" need to support classroom reform. 

However, barriers to implementation occurred at all levels. Until we are willing to confront such obstacles broadly, the possibility of maximizing student learning and supporting professional growth will remain severely limited. 
 

Table Implementation of 10 Elements of a  Comprehensive Reading/Language Arts Program 1
	Implemented within 1-6 months	Implemented within 7-12 months	Not implemented within one year
Reading aloud	25	0	0
SSR/SSW	20	5	0
Shared Book Experience	20	3	2
Guided Reading	28	7	0
Modeled Writing	27	5	3
Language Experience	12	8	5
Opportunity to Share	12	7	6
Children's Writing	9	12	4
Content Area Integration	12	5	8
Individualized Reading	1	3	21

Ruiz, N., & Figueroa, R. (1995). Learning-handicapped classrooms with Latino students: The Optimal Learning Environment (OLE) project. Education and Urban Society 27(4), 463-83.  

Zetlin, A., & MacLeod, E. (1995). A school-university partnership working toward the restructure of a urban school and community. Education and Urban Society 27(4), 411-20.  

Zetlin, A., Harris, K., MacLeod, E., & Watkins, A. (1992). The evolution of a university/inner city school partnership. Urban Education 27(1), 80-90.