Journal 2007[1]. Coverpage


 

1 

CCTC and the Process for Reauthorization of Bilingual Teacher Preparation 
Standards:  

 
A Critical-Historical Perspective 

 
Dr. Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, San Diego State University 
Dr. Margarita Berta-Avila, Sacramento State University 
Dr. Juan Flores, California State University Stanislaus 

 
Introduction and Background 

 
California and the rest of the 

United Sates are undergoing significant 
challenges in providing educational 
opportunities for an increasingly diverse 
population.  These challenges include 
inadequate literacy and numeracy skills 
among large segments of our student and 
adult populations; an ongoing shift in the 
demographic profile of our population, 
powered by the highest immigration 
rates in nearly a century, and the 
continuing evolution of the economy and 
the nation’s job structure, requiring 
higher levels of skills from an increasing 
proportion of workers (Irwin Kirsch 
ETS, 2007).  In the 1990’s the California 
Commission on Teacher Credentialing 
(CCTC) responded to these challenges in 
a forward thinking manner in, through 
the development of the Cross-culture, 
Language and Academic Development 
(CLAD) and the Bilingual CLAD 
emphasis certificates. The purpose of 
these certifications was to ensure that 
every graduate of a credential/licensure 
program in California was prepared to 
provide for the educational needs of 
English learners, whether in an English 
language development program (via 
CLAD) or in a bilingual program (via 
BCLAD).  

 
The CLAD and BCLAD 

authorizations changed in 1998 when the 
state of California passed Senate Bill 

2042 (SB 2042). This bill required 
CCTC to restructure the CLAD 
emphasis certification that authorized 
teachers to provide instruction to English 
learners. The passage of SB 2042 led to 
greater emphasis on English acquisition 
and less on biliteracy and bilingual 
development. Though not intentional, 
the passage of SB 2042 coincided with 
the passage of Proposition 227, which 
required that English learners be taught 
in English unless families specifically 
requested that their children be in a 
bilingual program. Proposition 227 
aimed to teach children English in one 
year and led to the dismantling of many 
bilingual programs in K-12 schools. 
Proposition 227 “is based on an English-
only ideology that denounces the use of 
any language other than English as a 
medium of instruction in the public 
schools and includes a provision that 
allows parents to sue teachers and school 
administrators for using Spanish as a 
means of instruction” (Montaño, 
Ulanoff, Quintanar-Sarellana & Aoki, 
2005, pg. 103).  As a result, since 
programs were beginning to disappear, 
one underlying current with the 
reauthorization of CLAD and SB 2042 
was that there would be less demand for 
bilingual teachers. It is clear that since 
Proposition 227 implied English only 
instruction as the norm, and bilingual 
education as an alternative model the 



 

2 

perception of the general public and 
policy makers was that there would be a 
decrease in bilingual programs. This 
further led to the assumption that there 
would be less demand or need for 
bilingually certified teachers. In reality, 
however, the demand for bilingual 
teachers did not change; in fact BCLAD 
certified teachers remain in high demand 
to teach in classrooms and schools with 
high English learner populations 
(Montaño, et al 2005). 

 
Concurrently, Senate Bill 2042 

was approved by the legislature with a 
comprehensive plan to revamp teacher 
credentialing in California.  This bill was 
the product of an analysis of the 
preparation of teachers by a blue ribbon 
panel of educators. In 1998 the CCTC 
reauthorized K-12 credentials under 
Senate Bill (SB) 2042. One major 
component addressed in SB 2042 was 
how teacher candidates would be 
prepared to meet the language and 
academic needs of English learners. 
CCTC authorized that all teacher 
candidates would receive the English 
Language Authorization (ELA) 
previously known as the Cross-cultural, 
Language and Academic Development 
(CLAD) certificate. When CLAD was 
aligned with SB 2042, there were certain 
assumptions operating. The first 
occurred in the context of Proposition 
227, that all bilingual programs would 
be eliminated.  This was incorrect 
because Proposition 227 did not address 
teacher preparation and in fact permitted 
for parent selection of alternative options 
that included primary language 
instruction.  The next assumption was 
that teacher certification in the era of 
Proposition 227 would emphasize 
mainstream and Structured English 
Immersion (SEI) for English Learners 

(EL’s), and that the need to address 
specific bilingual programs would 
decrease.  As such, the final assumption 
would be that EL student needs would 
now be addressed solely through this 
new certification. Many of these 
assumptions have been proven wrong as 
our bilingual professionals and our 
bilingual communities worked with our 
schools in requesting alternatives to the 
one-size-fits-all Unz plan.   

 
At the time of reauthorization of 

the CLAD under SB 2042, there was no 
mention of the BCLAD, or what the new 
requirements would be under SB-2042 
for the preparation of bilingual teachers. 
Since 2002 the CCTC has maintained 
the BCLAD under the standards for the 
CLAD and bilingual competencies. But 
as Montaño et al. (2005) point out in 
their study of BCLAD University 
programs, even though 98% of BCLAD 
program leaders surveyed had a BCLAD 
program before and after SB2042, 56% 
reported removal or restructuring of 
courses and 44% saw a decrease in 
student enrollment. Alarmed by the 
change in perceived and actual status of 
bilingual teacher preparation, bilingual 
educators and community members 
voiced their concerns and reminded 
CCTC of the need to provide highly 
trained bilingual educators to work in 
primary language programs that were 
still allowed under the restrictions of 
Proposition 227 initiative.   

 
 In order to address the inequity 
of teacher preparation for bilingual 
candidates, the CCTC convened a 
Bilingual Work Group beginning in late 
2005. The group was composed of 15 
experts in the area of English language 
development and biliteracy. They 
represented K-12 public education, 



 

3 

higher education, and professional 
development organizations. The first 
author of this article was a member of 
this group. The Bilingual Work Group’s 
task was to address four key policy 
questions that were designed to 
determine the need and processes for 
reauthorizing bilingual certification 
under 2042’s guidelines.  
The proposals were developed based on 
public input gathered via three sources:  

• focus groups held across the 
state,  

• an online bilingual survey sent to 

teachers and administrators, and  
• online forum questionnaires 

made available to those who 
could not attend public forums.  

Input was gathered from more than 900 
people from across the state. On the 
basis of the data gathered, the work 
group made specific recommendations 
that addressed each policy question. The 
details related to the policy questions 
and resulting recommendations will be 
considered later in this paper.   

 
Theoretical Frame 

 
As teacher educators in bilingual 

teacher preparation programs we see that 
our future teachers enter our programs 
with ability to communicate socially and 
academically in English and Spanish, 
and sometimes three or more languages. 
When they exit our programs they have 
the knowledge, skills and abilities to 
teach children language and academics 
in two languages. Further, these young 
professionals are best able to 
communicate with parents and 
community members who do not speak 
English. Once hired, bilingual teachers 
become the cultural brokers for their 
colleagues and peers, who are limited by 
only speaking English. It would seem 
that such skills will be highly valued and 
desired by policy makers. However, 
present policy not only makes it more 
difficult for these young men and 
women to enter the field of bilingual 
education, it sends the message often 
times that their language and community 
are not valued based on racist and white 
supremacist ideologies (hooks, 2003). 
Many of these individuals are first 
generation Latino college students, and 
they have a desire to return to their home 

communities to teach. This is most 
critical when 85.4% (1,342,389) of the 
English learner population is Latino 
(California Department of Education, 
2007). It is no coincidence then that we 
see a standardization movement within 
teacher education through NCLB with a 
focus of preparing teachers to meet the 
needs of English language learners, but 
this movement makes no statement or 
mention of the need for bilingual 
educators. 

 
Macedo, Dendrinos, and Gounari 

(2003) believe that it is this conservative 
agenda towards bilingualism/bilingual 
education/bilingual teacher preparation 
that has promoted “the hegemony of 
English” as a way to maintain position 
of power. Thus, education has become 
one entity, among many, used to enforce 
this hegemony of language through a 
particular instructional delivery system 
in which the ultimate goal is to, as 
Macedo, Dendrinos, and Gounari 
describe, “…deny effective education to 
millions of immigrant children in their 
native language” (p. 9). This theoretical 
stance is hard to dispute, when the 2005-



 

4 

2006 California state language census 
reports that there are only 181,006 
teachers providing SDAIE, ELD, or 
primary language instruction to the total 
English learner population (1,570,424) 
and of these 181,006 teachers providing 
such services, only 6,767 are doing so 
through primary language instruction 
(CDE, 2007). According to Macedo et 
al. (2003), ultimately, the system is 
perpetuating “linguistic racism” (p. 12) 
in imposing the idea that the learning of 
English, in and of itself is education. 
This type of imposition is a form of 
neocolonialism that strips children of 
various ethnicities from their own 
identity, language, and culture (Macedo, 
et al 2003).  

 
The current neoconservative 

agenda regarding bilingual education is 
an example of such a correlation. As 
Macedo, Dendrinos, and Gounari 
explain: 

The real meaning of a language 
has to be understood through the 
assumptions that govern it and 
the social, political, and 
ideological relations to which it 
points. Generally speaking, the 
issues of effectiveness and 
validity often hide the true role of 
language in the maintenance of 
the values and interests of the 
dominant class. In other words, 
the issues of the effectiveness and 
validity of a subordinate 
language become a mask that 
obfuscates questions about the 
social, political, and ideological 
order within which the 
subordinate language exists 
(2003, p. 13).  

The issue has never truly been the 
effectiveness of bilingual education or 
even the preparation of future bilingual 

educators. That argument has been used 
as a “mask” to hide the “fear” and 
“threat of the other” felt by the 
hegemonic bloc. Bilingual education and 
bilingual teacher preparation programs 
are viewed as a threat to that 
romanticized yesteryear that excluded 
marginalized communities from 
equitable access.  
 

What is evident now is that there 
exist two prevailing political views of 
bilingual education, which have a direct 
impact on how students are taught and 
how bilingual teachers are prepared. 
Brisk (1998) defines bilingual education 
as either "compensatory education" or 
"quality education". For many bilingual 
advocates the goal is for students to not 
just learn English but become 
bilingual/biliterate through a rigorous 
academic program, thus emphasizing a 
quality education. A quality education 
policy focuses on a student’s right to a 
good education with the goal being “to 
educate students to their highest 
potential” where English is only a part of 
the educational goal. In a quality model, 
“bilingual learners access knowledge not 
only through English but through their 
native languages” (Brisk, 1998, p. xix); 
there is a recognition and value for their 
cultural experiences and knowledge. As 
a result, the teachers best prepared to 
meet the needs of students under a 
quality model are bilingual and most 
often from the same cultural or language 
group as the students for whom they are 
being prepared to teach. 

 
For neoconservatives, the notion 

of providing a quality education let alone 
a “quality bilingual education program” 
is not the goal. A quality education 
model poses a threat at many levels, not 
only language, as previously mentioned. 



 

5 

What is advocated, according to Brisk, is 
a compensatory education policy that 
focuses on the choice of language, where 
the policy makers determine which 
language of instruction will be utilized. 
Within this model the overriding goal of 
education is to “teach students English 
as quickly as possible." Since “English is 
viewed as the only means for acquisition 
of knowledge, students’ fluency in 
English is the essential condition to 
receiving an education” (Brisk, 1998, p. 
xviii). The irony that exists in this latter 
quote is the connection between English 
and success, for it does not take into 
account the English only speaking 
students who are not succeeding in 
school. In particular, African-American 
students who have had English as their 
primary language yet are still subjected 
to systemic inequities that eventually 
lead them to be “pushed out” of their 
education (Macedo, Denderinos, & 
Gounari, 2003).  

 
The danger that lies with this 

compensatory view of bilingual 
education programs is that they are seen 
as the vehicle to assimilate students. 
Even in the context of bilingual 
education there has to be a word of 
caution, because compensatory programs 
promote an agenda of losing one’s 
language. Many who are advocates of 
bilingual education often fall into this 
belief system that they need to save their 
students from being identified as English 
language learners, therefore perpetuating 
the power status of English and 
devaluing the fact that these students are 
bilingual (Macedo, Dendrinos, & 
Gounari, 2003). When considering the 
reauthorization of the BCLAD, it is 
imperative that future teachers be highly 
trained pedagogically but also politically 
critical with respect to their role and 
positionality in a bilingual classroom.  

 
Reauthorization of the BCLAD 

 
Starting in 2003, several 

educational organizations including 
California Association for Bilingual 
Education (CABE), California 
Association for Teachers of English to 
Speakers of Other Languages 
(CATESOL) and Californians Together, 
became concerned about the preparation 
of bilingual teachers and began to 
collaboratively examine policy and work 
with both the staff and state 
commissioners of the California 
Commission on Teacher Credentialing 
(CCTC). The purpose of this coalition 
was to make certain that CCTC adhered 
to the law and continued to support the 
issuance and authorization for bilingual 
instruction via the Bilingual, Cross-

cultural, Language and Academic 
Development (BCLAD) Certificate.  

 
In the fall of 2005 and spring 

2006, the CCTC initiated a series of 
community stakeholder hearings on 
B/CLAD with the purpose of realigning 
the credential with SB 2042. 
Stakeholders were asked to address four 
policy questions:  
1) Should the Commission explore 
alternatives to the current route to 
bilingual certification for already-
credentialed teachers?  
2) How shall the commission maintain a 
structure for bilingual certification for 
those candidates who are in the process 
of earning a credential?  



 

6 

3) Given the increased number of 
languages spoken by students in 
California classrooms, how can the 
Commission provide bilingual 
certification for more languages?  
4) How should newer models of 
bilingual instruction be considered in the 
development of updated requirements 
for bilingual certification? The gathered 
responses would be forwarded to a 
bilingual workgroup organized by CCTC 
to address the BCLAD.  
 

The CCTC authorized staff to 
establish a bilingual workgroup of 
selected stake holder committee 
members representing, and in 
consultation with, a variety of 
professional educational organizations 
including the Association of California 
School Administrators, the California 
Teachers Association, California 
Association for Bilingual Education, 
California Association for Teachers of 
Speakers of other Languages, as well as 
elementary and secondary public school 
educators. The charge of the workgroup 
was to analyze the stakeholder responses 
to the four policy questions, and come 
forth with recommendations that would 
serve as a foundation towards the 
reauthorization of the bilingual 
credential.  

 

Through the initial process 
outlined above, the coalition stayed 
diligent in overseeing and informing the 
CCTC workgroup process. Moreover, 
they worked to assure that there was 
substantial interaction with the field and 
community groups at the field focus 
sessions that the Commission was 
scheduling in various parts of California 
to gather community input.  The 
workgroup and coalition worked 
together to get the word out regarding 
the public stakeholder field sessions in 
order to assure that there was substantial 
input from community stakeholders. 
Substantial input was gathered from 
these sessions to reflect the preferences 
and opinions of the bilingual community 
and professional constituents. 

 
In addition to the various 

stakeholder field focus sessions, the 
bilingual workgroup via CCTC posted 
an online survey questionnaire to canvas 
the professional opinions of educators 
regarding the bilingual reauthorizations 
who were unable to attend a public 
meeting. This survey was disseminated 
with the assistance of CABE and 
CATESOL.  The existence of this survey 
was announced at various professional 
meetings and conferences and the 
attending professionals were encouraged 
to respond to the questionnaire and share 
this information with their colleagues.   

 
Results and Recommendations from Bilingual Workgroup 

 
The following text is taken from 

the CCTC Agenda item (pages PSC 4E-
12 –18). This public document was 
presented by CCTC Staff to the 
Commissioners at the May 31/June 1, 
2006 Commission Meeting. The policy 
questions and recommendations listed 

below were all approved unanimously at 
this meeting. To see the agenda 
document, that includes data from 
stakeholder meetings and on-line 
surveys, go to 
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/agen
das-2006.html. 

 



 

7 

Policy Question 1: Should the Commission explore alternatives to the current route 
to bilingual certification for already credentialed teachers? 

 
Teachers who hold a credential that does not authorize them to teach in a bilingual 

classroom may add a bilingual teaching authorization by passing the Bilingual Cross-
cultural and Language and Academic Development (BCLAD) Examination. The work 
group considered whether an examination route should be the only route to earn a 
bilingual authorization for those teachers already credentialed (as is the current policy) or 
whether there should be additional routes to bilingual certification, such as completion of 
a program of coursework, or a combination of both coursework and passage of an 
examination. 
 
Policy Question 1: Work Group Recommendations: 
 
A:  For currently credentialed teachers, 
BCAWG recommends that the current 
prerequisites to earning bilingual 
authorizations should continue for future 
bilingual authorizations issued by 
CCTC: 
1. Candidates must possess a valid 
credential or permit as authorized in 
Title 5 Regulations, Section 80015.2(a) 
2. Candidates must hold an English 
learner authorization (CLAD 
authorization or equivalent) as 
authorized in Title 5 Regulations, 
Section 80015.1. 
 
B:  The BCAWG recommends that a 
Certificate of Staff Development, as 
outlined in Education Code § 44253.10, 
should also be considered for partial 
fulfillment of the English learner 
authorization prerequisite outlined in A-
2, above.* 
 
C:  The BCAWG recommends that the 
Commission revalidate the six domains 
currently specified in the Bilingual, 
Cross-cultural, Language and Academic 
Development examinations and 
authorizations as outlined in Education 
Code §44253.5(c). It should be noted 
that Domains 1 – 3 have been already 
revalidated through establishment of the 

California Teachers of English Learners 
Examination (CTEL): 
1. First- and second-language 
development and the structure of 
language, 
2. Methodology of English language 
development and specially designed 
content instruction in English. 
3. Culture and cultural diversity 
4. Methodology of content instruction in 
the pupil’s primary language 
5. Knowledge of the culture associated 
with a specific language group 
6. Competence in a language other than 
English that is spoken by limited-
English proficient pupils in California. 
All candidates wishing to pursue 
bilingual certification in California 
would satisfy these domains, once 
revalidated. 
 
D:  Requirements for Domain 4, 
“methodology of content instruction in 
the pupil’s primary language”, could be 
met through examination, CCTC-
accepted IHE coursework, or CCTC 
approved professional development. 
1. It is recommended that the 
Commission review and revalidate the 
knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of 
the current methodology component. 
 



 

8 

E:  The requirements for Domain 5, 
“culture associated with a specific 
language group” could be met through 
examination, Commission-accepted IHE 
coursework, or Commission approved 
professional development: 
1. It is recommended that the 
Commission review and revalidate the 
knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of 
the current cultural component of the 
BCLAD Examination. 
 
F:  The requirements for Domain 6, 
“competence in a language other than 
English that is spoken by limited-
English-proficient pupils in California” 
could be met in any of the following 
ways: 
1. The candidate passes a CCTC-

approved examination (example, Test 6 
of the current BCLAD Examination). 
This is currently authorized in Education 
Code Section 44253.6. 
2. The candidate holds a California 
Single Subject or Standard Secondary 
Teaching Credential with a major in the 
language to be authorized. This is 
currently authorized in Title 5, Section 
80015.1(4)(B). 
3. The candidate has earned a higher 
education degree from a foreign 
institution in which the instruction is 
delivered in the language to be 
authorized. This is currently authorized 
in Title 5, Section 80015.1 (4)(A). 
4. The candidate has passed the language 
portion of the CSET Language Other 
Than English (LOTE) examination.* 

 
Policy Question 2: How shall the Commission maintain a structure for bilingual 
certification for those candidates who are in the process of earning a credential? 
 

Under the Ryan Credential 
structure, program standards were 
developed specifically for BCLAD 
Emphasis programs so that teacher 
candidates could earn a bilingual 
authorization in addition to their 
Multiple Subject and Single Subject 
Teaching Credential. The work group 
considered whether teacher candidates 
should be able to continue to earn a 
bilingual authorization as part of their 

credential program requirements within 
the SB 2042 credential structure, or 
whether candidates should earn bilingual 
authorization through a concurrent 
program. The Commission currently 
issues Multiple and Single Subject 
BCLAD Emphasis SB 2042 Credentials 
pending the update of bilingual 
certification pathways for new and 
experienced teachers. 

 
Policy Question 2: Work Group Recommendations 
 
A:  The BCAWG recommends that the 
Commission develop bilingual teacher 
preparation program standards that align 
with SB 2042 Standards and include the 
following knowledge, skills and abilities 
(KSAs): 
1. Current research and best practices 
related to pedagogy, first and second 
language development, linguistics, and 

biliteracy. 
2. Current legislation and policies 
pertaining to second language learners 
and teacher preparation. 
3. Bilingual program models, (e.g., 
transitional, two-way/dual language 
immersion, foreign language, 
maintenance, etc.). 
4. Other instructional program settings 



 

9 

for English Learners, including those 
that provide specialized English 
language development instruction for 
secondary students. 
5. Social, economic and cultural contexts 
of the target community. 
6. Student teaching or internship in 
bilingual instructional settings with 
English Learners in K-12 public schools. 
 
B:  Maintain existing multiple pathways 
to earn a bilingual credential that include 
the following: 
1. Program coursework (e.g., university 
programs, blended programs, and 
internships) 
2. CCTC-approved language 
competency, culture and pedagogy 

examinations. 
 
C: Develop a form of the teaching 
performance assessment (TPA) that is 
appropriate to measure teaching in a 
bilingual setting. 
 
D:  Develop induction support for 
bilingual teachers in the following ways: 
1. Support will continue from the 
preliminary credential through induction 
to the professional clear credential, 
2. Support will include assignment of a 
bilingual support provider when 
available, 
3. Complete SB 2042 Induction Standard 
19 in a bilingual educational context 
when available. 

 
Policy Question 3: Given the increased number of languages spoken by students in 
California classrooms, how can the Commission provide bilingual certification for 
more languages? 
 
Currently, there are ten language 
authorizations available through the 
BCLAD Examination and a total of 
fourteen language authorizations 
available through BCLAD Emphasis 
programs yet over fifty different 
languages are spoken in California 
classrooms. In an attempt to address the 
regional needs for bilingual teachers to 
provide instruction in less commonly 
taught languages, the BCAWG 

recommends that the Commission 
increase the number of authorizations 
from that currently issued for bilingual 
credential authorizations. In an attempt 
to address the needs of all English 
learners, the BCAWG explored ways 
that would allow the Commission to 
expand the number of language 
authorizations for bilingual certification, 
yet maintain rigor and flexibility for 
bilingual certification in Less Commonly 
Taught Languages (LCTLs). 

 
Policy Question 3: Work Group Recommendations 
 
A:  The BCAWG recommends there 
would not be a limit to the number of 
languages for which the Commission 
could provide bilingual authorizations. 
Additionally, the work group advises 
that all recommendations outlined in 
Policy Questions 1 and 2 are also 
applicable to those candidates wishing to 
pursue a bilingual authorization in a 

LCTL. 
 
B:  Candidates for the LCTLs must 
satisfy the requirements for the six 
domains currently outlined in Education 
Code §44253.5(c): 
1. First- and second-language 
development and the structure of 
language, 



 

10 

2. Methodology of English language 
development and specially designed 
content instruction in English, 
3. Culture and cultural diversity, 
4. Methodology of content instruction in 
the pupil’s primary language, 
5. Knowledge of the culture associated 
with a specific language group, and 
6. Competence in a language other than 
English that is spoken by limited English 
proficient pupils in California. 
 
C Maintain language competency 
examinations in those languages that are 
currently offered in the BCLAD 
Examinations, maintaining rigor in the 
target language competency in 
accordance with CCTC approved 
standards. The exams should include 
listening, speaking, reading, writing, and 
translation ability, as well as 
communicative and academic language 
skills. 
 
D: Maintain the current KSAs for 
language competence for the current 
BCLAD Examinations. 
 
E:  Currently, BCLAD examinations are 
only offered in LCTLs only one time per 
year. 
BCAWG recommends that language 
competency examinations for less 
commonly taught languages (LCTLs) 
should be administered at least twice a 
year. 

 
F:  For language examinations not 
currently available through the CCTC-
approved testing contractor and/or not 
administered at least twice a year: 
The CCTC could consider the 
establishment of language panels for the 
development of assessment criteria and 
test specifications for the LCT language 
competencies.* 
 
G:  Outside agencies (e.g., county 
offices of education, institutions of 
higher education) may develop one 
examination per target language, to be 
approved by CCTC for each of the less 
commonly taught languages, with the 
following considerations: 
1. The CCTC would be responsible for 
initial and on-going review and 
revalidation of these examinations, and 
2. CCTC approved language exams 
would be accepted by all institutions that 
offer teacher preparation programs as 
meeting the language proficiency 
requirement for bilingual certification.* 
 
H:  Outside agencies (e.g., ACTFL, 
Defense Language Institute) could 
develop and administer examinations for 
each of the less commonly taught 
languages. Passing scores on these 
examinations would fulfill Domain 6 
requirements and would be accepted by 
all institutions offering bilingual 
certification in that target language.* 

 
Policy Question 4: How should newer models of bilingual instruction be considered 
in the development of updated requirements for bilingual certification? 
 

The knowledge, skills, and 
abilities required for the current BCLAD 
have not been updated since 1994. Since 
that time, two-way or dual immersion 
models of bilingual education instruction 
have become more predominant in 

California bilingual education 
classrooms. Some experts report that 
higher degrees of language proficiency 
are required for these newer instructional 
models, and that other knowledge, skills, 
and abilities are required besides those 



 

11 

needed for traditional bilingual 
instruction models. The work group 
members considered whether two-way 
immersion models of instruction should 

require a different kind of authorization 
and whether a specialist credential 
would be more appropriate for teaching 
in two-way immersion classrooms. 

 
Policy Question 4: Work Group Recommendations 
 
A:  Bilingual certification should 
continue to authorize teachers to deliver 
instruction in all bilingual program 
models. 
 
B:  Review and revalidate guidelines and 
standards for the current Specialist 
Instruction Credential in Bilingual 
Cross-cultural Education, as authorized 
in Education Code §44265, based upon a 
current job analysis and changes in 
policies, program models and 

methodologies in bilingual education. 
Guidelines for the new authorization 
could consider the structures of the 
Reading Certificate (Education Code 
§44254) and the Reading Specialist 
Credential (Education Code §44265). 
 
C:  Consider exemplary professional 
development models and experimental 
programs in the development of the 
bilingual specialist credentials. 

 
Current Status of the Bilingual Authorization 

 
The recommendations above 

were approved unanimously by the 
Commissioners and at this time CCTC 
approved a work plan to begin the next 
step of forming a Bilingual Design 
Team.  The purpose of this group, which 
began meeting in October, 2006, is to 
update the knowledge, skills and abilities 
sections of the methodology and culture 
tests for the bilingual exam as well as to 
develop bilingual standards aligned with 
2042 and current bilingual/biliteracy 
research.  The membership of the 
bilingual workgroup became the new 
members of the bilingual design team, 
with the addition of some new members.  
The Bilingual Design team now has the 
charge of meeting through September 

2007 to craft a set of bilingual standards 
in alignment with SB 2042. The CCTC 
staff will present the results of this work 
to the Commission in October of 2007.  
It is anticipated that the draft standards 
will be ready for review by the field 
prior to the October meeting.  

 
We applaud the Commission for 

approving the recommendations and the 
commitment of the staff to work with the 
Bilingual Design Team. We also 
appreciate the commitment over the past 
year to work with academics and school 
personnel to move forward on this 
important work and are cautiously 
optimistic as to the outcomes that will 
follow. 

 

 

 

 



 

12 

Advocacy Grows:   
Birth of the California Association for Bilingual Teacher Education 

 
In addition to these discussions, 
professionals in bilingual teacher 
preparation initiated the establishment of 
an affiliate group to CABE, called the 
California Association for Bilingual 
Teacher Education (CABTE).  They 
determined that there was a need for a 
professional organization that would 
oversee and champion the preparation of 
highly prepared bilingual educators They 
proposed the goals of CABTE as 
follows: 

• To unify the voice of higher 
education faculty in Bilingual 
Education and Dual Language 
Instruction in matters related to 
the education of minority and 
language minority children; 

• To represent the voice of 
Bilingual Education and Dual 
Language Instruction faculty in 
higher education and other 
professionals involved in 
bilingual teacher preparation in 

the area of minority and language 
minority education; 

• To advocate on behalf of the 
education of minority and 
language minority children; 

• To work for the improvement of 
Bilingual Education and Dual 
Language teacher preparation. 

CABTE has coordinated its meetings to 
coincide with the CABE Conference , 
the National Two-Way CABE 
Conference, and the meetings of the 
California Council for Teacher 
Education (CCTE) to formalize its 
membership and is in the process of 
finalizing its affiliate membership with 
CABE and CCTE. CABTE has an 
interim board that was selected at the 
spring meeting of CCTE.  They will 
carry on the work of CABTE until the 
membership is formalized and a new 
board is elected at the spring 2008 
CABE Conference.

 
Conclusion 

 
Bilingual education has had a long 
history in California, with ebbs and 
flows of support based on the current 
political environment. Unfortunately, 
these are times of political retrenchment, 
with reactionary elements crying out for 
immigration restrictions and a new iron 
curtain separating Mexico and the 
United States.  But these are also times 
for activism and consciousness raising in 
our communities. These are the times to 
reactivate the allies for bilingual 
education and diversity.  Ada and 
Campoy (2004) tell us that we are all 
oppressed whenever anyone is 
oppressed.  "Any time we witness or 

participate silently in the oppression of 
others, our own sense of humanity is 
diminished and our joyful, creative voice 
is silenced." ( p. 15).  Ada and Campoy 
say that whenever we ourselves 
experience oppression, and do not have 
any allies to offer us support and 
affirmation, we also are silenced. Social 
injustice cannot not be maintained for 
long if we are not all conditioned in 
various ways to accept it.  We need to 
educate our partner immigrant 
communities and assist them in joining 
us in our struggle.  We cannot rest. So to 
this end we continue to move forward in 
our advocacy.



 

13 

 
References 

 
Ada, A. F. & Campoy, I. (2004) Authors in the classroom:  A transformative education process. Boston, Mass: Pearson, 
Allyn and Bacon. 
 
Brisk, M. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates.  
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Agenda & Minutes Archives (1998-2006).Online:  
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/agenda-archives.html  
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit. (2007). California public schools – Statewide 
enrollment reports [Data File]. Available from California Department of Education Services Web site, 
http://www.cde.ca.us. hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Routledge. 
 
Hooks, B. (2003).  Teaching community: A Pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Routhledge. 
 
Kirsch, I.,  Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007).  America's Perfect Storm: Three Forces Changing Our 
Nation's Future. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.  
 
Macedo, D., Dendrinos, B., & Gounari, P. (2003). The hegemony of English. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.  
Montaño, T. Ulanoff, S., Quintanar-Sarellana, R. & Aoki, L. (2005). The Debilingualization of California prospective 
bilingual teachers. Social Justice, 32, 3. pp.103-117. A Journal of  Crime, Conflict, and World Order. 
__________ 
 
Dr. Flores is Professor of Teacher Education and Coordinator of the Multilingual Education 
Program at California State University, Stanislaus.  Email: jflores@csustan.edu 
 
Dr. Karen Cadiero-Kaplan is Associate Professor and Coordinator of the MA Program at the Center 
for Policy Studies at San Diego State University.  Email: kcadiero@mail.sdsu.edu 
 
Dr. Margarit Berta-Avila is Assistant Professor in the Bilingual/Multicultural Department at CSU 
Sacramento.  Email:  bamargie@skymail.csus.edu