Scott Ellis Ferrin

Parental Choice and Language-of-Instruction Policies and Practices in Estonia.

This article will illuminate school and language choice and access to educational alternatives in Estonia among the Russian-speaking minority based on a literature review on school choice, and on preliminary findings from qualitative interview data conducted in Estonia among 15 families whose childrenstudy in Estonian schools, Russianschools, and bilingual programs. This research has found that Russian speaking choice parents selecting Estonian-speaking schools differ from nonchoice Russian-speaking parents in their resourcefulness. Second, the article discusses support systems provided to second language learners and will examine these from the perspective of second language acquisition theory. Despite the Soviet-era threat to the very survival of Estonian, and despite the current emphasis on the Estonian language, Estonian educational language policies and practices seem to indicate sensitivity and understanding of the issues involved insecond language acquisitionfor children in educational settings.

Sociocultural Aspects of Russian‐Speaking Parents’ Choice of Language of Instruction for Their Children in Estonia

In most cases, parents whose native language is not predominant in the area they live in have no opportunity to choose the language for their children’s instruction in schools. However, in some areas language minority families have options regarding the language of instruction (e.g., Finns in Sweden and Russians in Estonia). This article focuses on language choice from the viewpoint of these families. Typically, discussions of language of instruction have focused on integrative issues, such as creating loyal citizens, or instrumental or practical issues, such as education or labor market opportunities (Mets 2004). Choice, however, may have deeper cultural and emotional meanings for families, and such meanings may need to be considered by policy makers. In the United States, for example, policy debates on language of instruction have largely focused on whether or not to employ bilingual education strategies. In fact, states such as California, Arizona, and Massachusetts have forbidden (via referenda) the use of bilingual education, mandating English immersion, with approximately a year of transition in limited instances. Consequently, research in this area has become so politicized that, when a panel of scholars from the National Research Council studied the issue and found a positive effect from bilingual education, an opponent of bilingual education wrote that the report of the panel was intended to convey that “there is no evidence that there will be long-term advantages or disadvantages to teaching limited-English students in the native language” (Glenn 1997, 66). The study directors themselves had stated to the contrary: “Empirical results . . . support the theory underlying native language instruction” (August and Hakuta 1997, 147). Similarly, a recent meta-analytical study regarding the effectiveness of bilingual versus monolingual educational methods conducted by a panel of researchers appointed by the Bush administration found small to modest gains from bilingual programs. However, the Bush administration, after seeing the findings, declined to release the report (Krashen and McField 2005). In such a highly charged policy climate in the United States, most parents do not have a choice in the language of instruction for their children’s schooling. The U.S. language policy clearly is limiting families’ language

Latino Educators of Tomorrow Culture-Specific Mentoring for the College Transition

This qualitative study examines the perspectives of high school– and college-age students who participated in an educational program designed to increase the number of Latino students entering teaching as a profession: Latino Educators of Tomorrow. Using open-ended surveys and semistructured interviews, this study identified themes regarding the program and its instructors, including their influence on the participants’ plans to continue in higher education toward education-related careers. Findings point to the importance of the mentoring framework of Crisp and Cruz as well as cultural responsiveness in mentoring relationships for Latino students in the transition from high school to college.

Moral Dimensions of Bilingual Education.

Abstract The complexities involved in equitably educating language minority students raise ethical issues and involve the moral dimensions of teaching in a diverse democracy. Acknowledging the moral dimensions of bilingual education may encourage policy makers and practitioners to consider their ethical motivation and commitment to equitably educating all public education students. We use sociopolitical and legal perspectives to analyze the historical development of bilingual education policy in the United States and explore two arguments supporting the moral dimensions of bilingual education: (1) a morality based on economic and social interdependency and (2) a spiritual morality. We examine the potential and limitations of an economic and social morality and develop the construct of a spiritual morality as a means of harnessing the combined powers of intellect, emotions, politics, and spirituality in the fight to provide equitable education for language minority students.

The Preferred Perceptual Learning Styles of Hispanic Higher Education Students

This article addresses the question of whether higher education Hispanic students of different nationalities have different perceptual learning style preferences. Independent samples t test results suggest students of non-Mexican heritage prefer visual learning styles more than students of Mexican heritage. ANOVA results show older students and students from families with greater levels of education have greater preference for visual learning, and higher household income is related to lower preferences for group learning style, and vice versa.