The Sociocultural Context of Hawaiian Language Revival and Learning Final Report: Project 1.6

Principal Investigator:

Lois A. Yamauchi, University of Hawaii

Project Period:

July 1, 1996-June 30, 2001

Summary

Purpose

The purpose of this project was to study the development and implementation of Papahana Kaiapuni, the Hawaiian Language Immersion Program in the State of Hawai'i. Kaiapuni is the world's only public school K-12 program conducted in the Hawaiian language. It is an indigenous language immersion program, an educational program in which instruction is delivered in an indigenous language. Approximately 2000 students, the majority of whom are of Hawaiian ancestry, currently participate in the Kaiapuni program. Considering that only 30 youth spoke Hawaiian before the program was initiated in 1987, Kaiapuni has contributed to a 600% increase in the number of young Hawaiian speakers (Dunford, 1991; Heckathorn, 1987; Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001).

Kaiapuni advocates argue that the program is a more culturally compatible form of education for Hawaiian children because of its emphasis on the Hawaiian language and the Hawaiian culture and its incorporation of an indigenous perspective on curriculum and teaching methods. The program has also attracted more Hawaiians to the teaching profession. Currently, Hawaiians account for only 8% of all public school teachers in the State (Benham & Heck 1998). This contemporary statistic is in sharp contrast to the percentage of Hawaiians in the general population (23%) and that of Hawaiian students in the public schools (24%) (Benham & Heck, 1998). Contrary to these trends, the majority of the 100 teachers in the Kaiapuni program for the 2000-2001 school year were of Hawaiian ancestry (Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001).

This study is the first of its kind to document how this unique program began and has developed. The results of this study can assist other indigenous communities interested in implementing language immersion education for language revival and school reform.

Research Design

Literature Review

A literature review of indigenous language immersion programs was conducted in order to situate Paphana Kaiapuni within the context of other similar programs worldwide. Searches were conducted on the ERIC databases and on the world wide web using the keywords "immersion education" and "indigenous language."

Historical Analysis

An analysis of the historical and political events that led to the development and implementation of Papahana Kaiapuni was conducted. Data for this study were gathered through (a) semi-structured interviews with 10 people who were involved in early program development; (b) a review of research, newspaper, and newsletter articles written about the program; and (c) a content analysis of 207 pertinent Department of Education (DOE) and Board of Education (BOE) documents dated between 1987 and 1995.

Stakeholder Interviews and Focus Group Discussions

Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with members of various Kaiapuni stakeholder groups: teachers, principals, students and students' adult family members. Interviews and focus group discussions dealt with what participants perceived to be (a) the most important goals of the program, (b) the most successful program outcomes and (c) the most difficult challenges of participating in this program. Participants were also asked to discuss how they felt their participation in the program affected them as individuals and also affected their families and their community.

Family Case Study

Acase study was conducted to identify some of the variables that impede and enhance involvement of middle school parents whose children are enrolled in the Kaiapuni program. Semi-structured interviews, observations, and document analysis were used to compare Kaiapuni families at one particular site with families in the English language program at the same school. In their interviews, parents were also asked to discuss their perspectives on school program goals, outcomes and activities.

Data Collection/Instrumentation

Historical Documents

The DOE and BOE documents were acquired from a BOE member who was interviewed for the historical study. This individual had been keeping a personal archive of BOE and DOE documents pertaining to Kaiapuni program development between the years 1987 and 1995. In order to create this archive, the informant decided which documents he encountered, as a BOE member during that period of time, were considered pertinent to the Kaiapuni program.

Interviews and Focus Group Discussions

Interviews and focus group discussions followed a semi-structured format. See Appendices A-E for the interview questions. Focus group discussions were conducted with teachers from two schools. There were approximately 3-5 participants in each group that was facilitated by one of the researchers. In 18 of the adult family member interviews, two adult family members were interviewed at the same time. To enhance participation in the focus group discussions and interviews with two or more people, interviewers prompted all of the participants to respond to each question.

Interviews and focus group discussions with adult participants were approximately 1-1 1/2 hours in length. Interviews with children and youth were approximately 20-30 minutes long. All adult and secondary student interviews were conducted in English. Interviews with elementary students were conducted by a bilingual English/Hawaiian interviewer so that students could speak either English or Hawaiian. Although all of the students we interviewed spoke English or Hawai'i Creole English as their first language, we felt it was important to give younger students an option of responding to the questions in Hawaiian, given that we were asking them questions about their experiences in school. Because Kaiapuni students do not receive formal English language instruction until grade 5, it is possible that younger students might have felt more comfortable answering questions about school in Hawaiian.

All interviews and focus group discussions were audiotaped and later transcribed for analysis. Participation was voluntary. In appreciation for adult participants' involvement, the researchers donated $30 worth of books or supplies to a Kaiapuni school of the interviewee's choice.

Family Case Study

The case study was conducted at Kalama Intermediate School on the island of Maui. Kalama School was chosen because of its reputation for having highly involved Kaiapuni families. Although the Hawaiian language immersion program as a whole has an active parent group, the Maui program is particularly active (Puanani Wilhelm, personal communication, October 7, 1999). The Kaiapuni parent group of Maui (Nä Leo Kako`o O Maui) is unlike other Kaiapuni parent groups in that it involves families from elementary to high school levels. Different from other Kaiapuni sites, which generally have separate parent organizations for each school level (elementary, middle and high), Maui's Kaiapuni parent group meets as a unified organization. This organizational structure provides families an opportunity to participate in and be informed about issues and concerns across all grade levels and schools.

Case study interviews were generally conducted with individual parents, although two families from the English language program choose to have both parents participate in the interview. Each interview ranged between 30 - 120 minutes in length. Each interview was audio recorded and later transcribed. Four of the interviews were conducted by telephone. See Appendix F (Kaiapuni families) and G (English language program families) for the case study parent interview questions.

Observations of families provided a brief glimpse of families' daily activities. Field notes were taken during and after the observations that provided data to add to and support findings from the parent interviews. Kaiapuni families participating in different involvement activities were observed on three separate occasions. Field notes after each observation and, when appropriate, during the observation were taken. One observation (approximately 5 hours) entailed accompanying a mother throughout her afternoon activities beginning with picking up her three children, all who attended Kaiapuni, from school. This observation provided data about this mother's typical day with her children. A second opportunity to observe families involved accompanying a mother and her two Kaiapuni children on their Saturday morning outing to their canoe clubhouse. This observation (approximately 2 hours) allowed a close-up view of a family activity that was closely connected to their cultural identity. The third observation (approximately 2 hours) involved attending a parent group meeting, Nä Leo Kakoÿo O Maui. At this meeting the Kaiapuni parent group and the general types of decisions and information shared at these meetings were observed.

Document analysis was used to collect data on past family-school events and current family-school practices. In addition, documents provided a source to support findings from interviews and observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). All documents obtained were reviewed and used throughout the analysis process. School documents were obtained from Kalama Intermediate's principal. School documents included the annual school improvement report, school newsletters, and announcements of school activities. In addition to these documents, minutes for the 1999-2000 school year of the Nä Leo Kakoÿo O Maui [Hawaiian Immersion parent group] monthly meetings were obtained from the president of the Kaiapuni parent group.

Sample

Historical Interview Participants

Participants in the historical interviews included 10 people who were involved in the early development of the program: (a) four immersion teachers, including the first two teachers in the program; (b) three of the first principals; (c) a DOE administrator involved in early program development; (d) a BOE member considered instrumental in getting the program established in the DOE, and (e) a parent whose child was in one of first Kaiapuni classes. Each of these interviewees was nominated by the DOE educational specialist who currently coordinates the program.

Teacher Participants

Participants in the teacher interviews and focus group discussions included 37 Kaiapuni teachers from 13 of the 16 immersion sites that existed in the 1998-1999 school year. Teachers were recruited by contacting the principal or head immersion teacher at each school site. Those contacts were asked to identify educators who would offer unique perspectives on the program. Thirty-two of the teacher participants were elementary school teachers, four taught in middle schools, and one was a high school teacher. The majority of the teachers were female (78%, n=29). All but four held teacher credentials, and of these, one was a part-time teacher and the other was a student teacher. Most teacher participants (89%, n=33) were of Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian ancestry. (Ethnicity data for one of the teachers was not collected.) Eleven of the teachers were also parents of students in the Kaiapuni program.

Principal Participants

Principal participants included four administrators of schools that served as sites for the Kaiapuni program in the 1997-1998 school year. The principals were recruited through nominations by the Hawai'i State Department of Education (DOE) resource specialist for Hawaiian immersion education. All four of the principal participants were leaders of elementary schools that also housed an English language program. Three of these participants were female and one was male. Two were of Hawaiian ancestry, though none of the participants who were principals spoke Hawaiian.

Family Participants

There were 47 adult family participants, including 11 males and 36 females. At least two families from each of the 17 school sites that existed during the 1999-2000 school year were interviewed. Thirty eight of the family participants identified themselves as Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian.

Student Participants

There were 41 student participants, including 26 males and 15 females. The age of the students ranged from 7- to 18 -years-old. Twenty three of the students attended elementary school, 14 attended middle school, and 4 attended high school. Thirty eight of the student participants identified themselves as Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian.

Case Study Participants

Efforts were made to recruit parents that reflected the range of families at Kalama Intermediate School, with regard to socioeconomic status, marital status, students' academic achievement and parent involvement practices. This was accomplished by asking a Kalama parent representative to the statewide Kaiapuni organization and Kalama teachers to identify families representing such a range. Initially, the parent representative provided names of 6 families. Kaiapuni teachers identified the other 9 families.

Fifteen parents (14 mothers and 1 father) were interviewed from the Kaiapuni program at Kalama. The majority of the Kaiapuni parents identified themselves as Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian, only two parents were from other ethnic groups ("German" and "Caucasian"). Six of the parents worked in education with the others in various occupations. The average age of parents interviewed was 40 years-old. All parents except one had received their high school diploma. The majority of the parents had taken post-secondary courses with four parents receiving a degree or certificate. Five of the families qualified for the school's free or reduced lunch program that is based on the family's financial status.

Case study participants also included 15 parents whose children attended the English language program at Kalama, including 6 parents of sixth graders, 4 parents of seventh graders, and 5 parents of eighth graders. This group was interviewed in order to provide a comparison sample for the Kaiapuni families. Data were used to identify differences between family involvement practices among the programs and to control for school variables that may have influenced involvement practices within the Kalama Intermediate School site.

Initially three teachers from the English-only program, one from each grade level, were asked to identify families for the study. Teachers were asked to identify a range of families found at Kalama Intermediate based on their involvement practices, ethnicity and student achievement. The seventh grade teacher initially identified was unable to nominate families because she had not taught her students for a full school year. Families from the seventh grade were then identified through parent nominations. Parents interviewed were asked to nominate families from the eighth grade that they thought would contribute to the purpose of this study.

Kalama Intermediate teachers from the English language program nominated 11 families. Two parent participants identified 4 families that were interviewed. The Kaiapuni sample had a similar ratio of teacher and parent nominated families. None of the families from the English language program qualified for the school's free or reduced lunch program.

Findings and Implications

Research Question 1:

What is involved in the development and implementation of a kindergarten to grade 12 indigenous language immersion program? That is, what historical and political events led to the institution and development of the program? How are its efforts sustained? How is the Hawaiian language immersion program similar and different from other immersion and indigenous bilingual programs?

The Threat of Indigenous Language Loss

There are approximately 6,000 languages spoken in the world today . Of these, only 276, or 5%, are spoken by the majority (6 billion) of the world's inhabitants . Thus, most of the world's languages are spoken by relatively small communities; though, most speakers of the more dominant languages speak those languages as their second, third, or fourth languages . Very generally, the fewer the number of speakers of a language, and the older they are, the more the language is considered threatened with extinction . Krauss estimated that half of the 6,000 languages that exist today will be extinct within the next century. Ninety percent of all languages can be considered at-risk, if one uses the criterion of 100,000 speakers as a marker of a "safe" language (Bernard, 1997). These are grave threats considering that 1,000 languages have already been lost since 1500 AD, when Europeans began their efforts of global colonialism (Bernard, 1997).

In the U.S. and Canada, there are approximately 200 indigenous languages currently spoken, indicating that about 100 languages have disappeared since indigenous peoples' contact with European settlers (Krauss, 1996). Table 1 presents Krauss's model of language extinction and his estimates of the number of speakers and their ages. According to these estimates, 72% of all indigenous languages in the U. S. and Canada are spoken by only middle aged or elderly people, suggesting that these languages are threatened with extinction.

Table 1: Krauss's Four Categories of Indigenous Languages and their Application to the U.S. and Canada

Category	Description	Percentage of Indigenous Languages in this Category
A	Languages that are learned in the traditional way, that is, languages are learned by children from their parents and grandparents.	11%
B	Languages spoken by the parental generation who could teach their children, but generally do not.	17%
C	Languages spoken only by the middle-aged and grandparent generations.	40%
D	Language spoken by only a few, very elderly people. These languages may be completely out of common use or spoken by only one or two people.	32%

 

Increasingly, children of indigenous language speakers are not learning their parents' first language. Crawford points out that only two of the 20 indigenous languages still spoken in Alaska are being passed on to the current generation of youth, and this is similar to other areas of the United States:

In Oklahoma, only 2 of 23 are being learned by children. All of California's 31 languages are moribund; of these 22 are spoken only by small groups of elders. Among the 16 indigenous tongues still spoken in Washington State, few if any have fluent speakers under the age of 60 (Crawford, 1995, p. 18).

Even among languages that are considered healthy, there has been a decrease in the number of young speakers (Crawford, 1995). Navajo, for example, is considered to be the healthiest of all American Indian languages. Yet, the number of Navajos who speak only English is growing, especially among those who have left the Navajo nation and among school-aged youth (Crawford, 1995). In one decade the latter group doubled in size from 5, 103 monolingual English speakers in 1980 to 12, 207 in 1990.

Why Are So Many Indigenous Languages Disappearing?

"Language shift" is used to describe the process by which a community changes its language use in favor of another group's language . There are many reasons why language shift is occurring among indigenous peoples in favor of English and other majority languages. Some scholars use terms such as "language murder," to refer to colonizers forcing a group to speak another language and "language suicide" for cases of a community choosing to suppress its heritage language in favor of another group's language (Crawford, 1995). However, Crawford (1995) argues that these labels are too simplistic. Instead, he suggests that there are many reasons why indigenous children are not learning their heritage language and are instead becoming monolingual in the majority language.

Language shift can better be described as a combination of many different forces (Crawford, 1995). These include national and local educational policies that tend to favor students' quick transition from minority languages to the majority language (e.g., Churchill, 1986; Reyhner & Eder, 1992; Ventura, 1997). The transition to a wage-earning, cash economy has also been influential, as jobs often require proficiency in the majority language, and employment outside minority language communities lure many to places where only the majority language is spoken (Crawford, 1995; Watahomigie & McCarty, 1994; Ventura, 1997).

In the U. S., federal policies regarding subsidized housing have also indirectly influenced language shift by promoting nuclear family living over more traditional patterns of extended family households (Watahomigie & McCarty, 1994; Watahomigie & McCarty, 1997). This has made it less likely that children will learn their heritage language because in smaller households, that do not include the grandparent generation, there are fewer language models and contexts for indigenous language use. For some communities, the absence of grandparents has disrupted the means by which much of traditional knowledge had been conveyed (Watahomigie & McCarty, 1994). Finally, the pervasiveness of television, VCRs and other forms of mass media that are dominated by the majority language; inter-marriage with those from other language communities; and a general integration into the broader community of predominantly majority speakers are all forces that promote language shift in indigenous communities (Crawford, 1995; Maltz & Fox, 1999; Watahomigie & McCarty, 1994; 1997).

In the next section we focus on how educational policies have influenced language shift among indigenous communities, particularly in the U. S.. We provide this discussion as a means of tracing the history of language shift in these communities and that of the role of government. However, as discussed above, we acknowledge that language policies are but one of many factors that promote language shift in indigenous communities.

The Influence of Language and Educational Policies

May (1998) argued that the rise of the modern nation state has led to the decline of many minority languages. In order to foster a growing sense of identity with the nation state, countries have promoted a majority language to the detriment of minority languages. In general, nation states tend to adopt a common national language for civic activities . Although members may use a different language for private purposes, a national language is typically emphasized as the language of commerce, education, and other civic life. Consequently, the language of the majority gains status over minority languages, and people begin to devalue the latter because they are used in fewer formal contexts:

The language and culture of the dominant group comes to be viewed as the only vehicle of modernity and progress, and the only medium of "national" identity. Alternatively, other cultural and language affiliations are viewed pejoratively as merely "ethnic" and, relatedly, as regressive and premodern (May, 1998, p. 275).

Based on his analysis of educational policies in countries of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Churchill (1986) described six stages of policies designed to address the educational needs of linguistic and cultural minorities. These stages represent a progression toward policies that are more inclusive of minority languages and cultures. (See Table 2 for a summary of the stages.) Stages 1-4 are based on a deficit model, reflecting the notion that minority students do not do well in school because they do not speak the majority language and are not members of the majority culture. Stages 5 and 6 suggest an alternative view of cultural and linguistic differences. These latter stages reflect the notion that cultural and linguistic differences are advantageous to individuals and to society (Churchill, 1986)

Table 2: Churchill's Stages of Policy Responses

Stage	Description of Stage	Minority Language Outcomes
Stage 1: Learning Deficit	Educational problems attributed to use of minority language. Policies promote rapid transition to the majority language.	Minority languages replaced by the dominant language.
Stage 2: Socially-Linked Learning Deficit	Educational problems attributed to family's social status. Polices promote rapid transition to the majority language. Some educational programs assist students in their adjustment to the majority culture.	Minority languages replaced by the dominant language.
Stage 3: Learning Deficit from Cultural/Social Differences	Educational problems attributed to linguistic and cultural differences, but emphasis also placed on affective consequences (e.g., self-concept). Some responsibility given to society and schools for not responding well to minority cultures. Multicultural education for students and teachers.	Minority languages eventually replaced by the dominant language, although minority languages may continue to be used at home for one or two generations.
Stage 4: Learning Deficit from Mother Tongue Deprivation	Educational problems attributed to premature loss of first language learning influencing learning of the majority language. Support may be provided for minority language development with instruction as a separate subject or some subjects taught in the medium of the minority language.	Same as in Stage 3, although transition from minority to majority languages may take longer in school.
Stage 5: Private Use Language Maintenance	Educational problems attributed to weaker social position of language and culture. Minorities have the right to keep their language and culture, though they are expected to enter majority society. Minority languages used as the medium of instruction at least through elementary school.	Minority languages continue to be used in homes. Outside the home, the majority language is used.
Stage 6: Language Equality	Minority languages considered equal in status to that of the majority and are considered official languages. Separate education in minority languages, usually administered by the minority group. Support in areas beyond education for the continuance of minority languages.	Long-term use of minority languages in homes, education, business. Co-existence of minority and majority languages.

 

Churchill (1986) suggests that his stages are not mutually exclusive. For example, all of the countries he studied implemented some policies that could be classified as Stage 1; that is, those that are based on the notion that the academic problems of minority students are due to their lack of proficiency in the majority language. At the same time, many such policies could also be categorized as Stage 2, when the deficiency was considered to be due to students' socioeconomic status.

In the context of Churchill's framework, many of the early U. S. policies regarding American Indian education are consistent with Stage 1. The first federally-sponsored schools for American Indians, both on and off reservations, promoted assimilation into the majority culture . Students were punished for speaking their indigenous languages, talking about their home cultures, or engaging in cultural activities. In the 1880s and early 1900s, many American Indians youth were forced to attend Board of Indian Affairs (BIA) boarding schools that were located far from their homelands. Youth were often not allowed to return to their families and communities for extended visits. In 1902, the BIA operated 25 schools in five states and enrolled 9.736 students .

Boarding school educators tended to view indigenous languages and cultures as uncivilized and believed that students needed to be forced to adopt the more enlightened ways of the majority culture (Reyhner & Eder, 1992). In 1934, the English-only and ethnocentric policies of these schools were rescinded. However, in practice, many schools continued as they had for at least another decade: emphasizing assimilation into dominant American society and devaluing native people's cultures and languages (Crawford, 1995). The consequences of these experiences left many American Indians disenfranchised from their home communities, culture, and language. Many former boarding school students reported feeling ashamed of their cultural and linguistic heritage and were unwilling, and often unable, to pass on cultural knowledge and their indigenous languages to children.

More recent U.S. policy regarding indigenous languages reflects higher stages of cultural and linguistic inclusion. For example, established in 1968, the Bilingual Education Act, can be classified by Churchill's Stage 4 because it emphasizes instruction in students' first language as a means of assisting later transition to the majority language (Churchill, 1986; Dick & McCarty, 1997). The Indian Education Act of 1972 established monies for the development of bilingual and bicultural curriculum and materials for American Indians and Alaska Natives, and the Indian Self Determination Act of 1975 specified a way for Indian communities to establish contracts with the federal government to operate their own schools with federal funding (Dick & McCarty, 1997). Finally, the 1992 Native American Languages Act was written by participants of the 1988 concurrent sessions of the American Indian Language Development Institute (AILDI) and the Native American Language Issues (NALI) Institute . This legislation can be classified by Churchill's Stage 5 because its goals include the preservation of indigenous languages and cultural resources (McCarty, 1994). Thus, recent U. S. policy reflects a shift away a deficit model to one that values the maintenance of indigenous languages and cultures (McCarty, 1994), at least for private purposes.

On a local level, many Native American groups have established policies that designate their indigenous language as an official language of their community. Although these policies are consistent with Churchill's Stage 6, most of these communities do not have a tax-base to fund their schools . This has made them dependent upon federal funding and bound by national policies that have tended, as reviewed above, to be less inclusive of minority languages and cultures. Federal funding and program initiatives have also been sporadic and uncoordinated, resulting in short-lived and disconnected programs (McCarty, 1994).

The Hawaiian Language: A History of Policy and Education

Historically, Native Hawaiians also faced educational policies that promoted English over their indigenous language. Following the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, American businessmen and others vying for control over the islands instituted formal policies that replaced Hawaiian with English as the language of government and commerce (Shütz, 1994; Wilson, 1998). In 1896, it became illegal to use the Hawaiian language in public education. Until then, many residents, indigenous or otherwise, spoke Hawaiian. For example, many immigrant plantation workers used Hawaiian to converse with other workers from different countries. Although Hawaiian was originally an oral language, the missionaries who came to the islands in the early 1820s translated the bible into Hawaiian and began promoting reading in the indigenous language as a means of converting the populace to Christianity. This resulted in over half of the population reading and writing in Hawaiian by 1830 .

The first missionaries believed that instructing the native populace in Hawaiian was the best means of accomplishing their goals (Shütz, 1994). They were wary of Hawaiians learning English. Because the missionaries were the most proficient in the Hawaiian language of all foreigners at that time, they feared that without this advantage, they would lose their stronghold on the islanders. For example, they feared that English speaking Hawaiians would stray to vices of the ports, where sailors and other "sinful" foreigners spoke English and could influence them. For the second generation of missionaries, however, the opposite was true. They felt that they were not as effective at converting Hawaiians to Christianity because the general population continued to speak their native language. In particular, these second generation missionaries were threatened by the resurgence of interest in hula (Hawaiian dance) and kähuna (Hawaiian priests) practices (Shütz, 1994). The former, they viewed as lewd and promoting the worship of Hawaiian gods. The latter, they saw as an obstacle in moving Hawaiians away from their traditional religion and civility.

The ban on the language quickly decimated the healthy literacy rate of the Hawaiian language that had existed at the turn of the century. Students were punished for using the language in school . School curricula also emphasized the lesser importance of minority languages and cultures, such as Hawaiian, and privileged the English language and European-American culture (Benham & Heck, 1998; Tamura, 1994). Many Hawaiians reported being ashamed of speaking their first language and only did so in private. They often did not teach their children the language and emphasized the learning of English instead. At this point in the islands' history, Hawai'i Creole English, known informally in the islands as "Pidgin English" replaced Hawaiian as the language of peer group communication .

Despite the devastating effects of these policies, the Hawaiian language did survive. On the privately owned island of Ni'ihau, a small population of Hawaiians were allowed to publicly continue to use the language. In addition, some families, church members, and cultural practitioners (e.g., native healers and hula teachers) on other islands continued to use Hawaiian for various purposes, although many often did not use the language in public. By the early 1980s, it was estimated that within a population of approximately 1 million residents, there were only 2000 speakers of Hawaiian, of whom only 30 were under age 18 (Dunford, 1991; Heckathorn, 1987). Clearly, the language was seriously threatened.

In the 1970s and 1980s there was a renewal of interest in the Hawaiian language and culture that some have coined the "Hawaiian renaissance" (Benham & Heck, 1998). Influenced by the civil rights movement nationwide and coinciding with an affirmation of indigenous groups worldwide, the movement in Hawai'i included a renewed focus in Hawaiian cultural activities such as traditional navigation, song and dance, and using of the Hawaiian language. In addition, many in the Hawaiian community began seeking avenues for political sovereignty and redress. In 1978, delegates to a State Constitutional Convention established that the Hawaiian language would accompany English as one of the two official languages of the State. In 1984, a group of language teachers and activists were successful in lobbying the Board of Education to lift the ban on using Hawaiian in public school classrooms.

Early Program Development

Pünana Leo Preschools

1984 also marked the establishment of Pünana Leo, a private Hawaiian language immersion preschool. This move was largely fueled by encouragement from Mäori language activists who had successfully established Maori immersion education in New Zealand, first by creating Mäori preschools (Kame'elehiwa, 1992; Wilson, 1998). Pünana Leo preschools were modeled after the Maori Te Kohanga Reo model. Te Kohanga Reo and Pünana Leo integrate the cultural traditions of extended family (whanau in Mäori and 'ohana in Hawaiian) . Parents, grandparents, and other community members are actively involved in the preschools. In the Mäori case, each Kohanga or center is autonomous and "the whole community is involved in, and responsible for, the day to day running of the Kohanga" (King, 1999, p. 118). Many of the issues the Mäori faced concerning indigenous rights were also similar to those faced by the Native Hawaiians. Pünana Leo founders met with Te Kohonga Reo leaders, who urged them to consider indigenous immersion education as a means of revitalizing their language (Bowman, 1990). A parent who was involved in lobbying for the implementation of Kaiapuni commented that the people involved in developing Pünana Leo, "frequently [went] down to Aotearoa, to look at how they're language programs [were] working" (Lilikala, family member).

For the 1997-1998 school year there were 10 Pünana Leo sites statewide, serving approximately 220 children. Instruction in the preschools is entirely in the Hawaiian language and parents of the preschoolers are required to learn the language as well (Kamanä & Wilson, 1996). Parents are also required to spend eight hours each month working for the school and to attend a monthly organizational meeting (Kamanä & Wilson, 1996; Wilson, in press). This kind of commitment both attracts and develops parents who are advocates for their children's education and the Hawaiian language. As the first group of preschoolers moved towards school age, parents, teachers, and administrators of Pünana Leo began to imagine possible options for their students:

Pünana Leo is the "driving force"...the preschool started because a bunch of college language people were sitting around wanting to do something in the language for their kids...then the natural step is, okay, now after preschool what are we gonna do . . . they felt that the State of Hawai'i owed it to the Hawaiian people to do this for them. (Lilikala, family member).

A former Kaiapuni principal admitted that Kaiapuni "wasn't something the DOE came up with. It was extended to the DOE" (Doris, principal). All interviewees credit Pünana Leo supporters as Kaiapuni's stimulus. "You have to give credit where credit is due, you know, they wanted to see the continuing of the Pünana Leo into the upper grades...so I think...everything has to do with the Pünana Leo" (Thomas, principal). The root of the DOE program was the Pünana Leo preschools, and the driving force behind it were its parents and community activists.

Establishing Kaiapuni Within the Public Schools

In 1986 the oldest children at Pünana Leo preschools were ready to enter kindergarten. Parents and other Pünana Leo supporters began to lobby the BOE to establish a Hawaiian medium program in the public schools. These activists were committed to saving the Hawaiian language and believed that immersion was the way to accomplish that goal. A DOE administrator noted, "The first year [were]...radical groups...just to the core [they did] anything possible to keep this program afloat, and the commitment was overwhelming" (Doris, principal).

At a BOE Hawaiian Education Affairs Committee meeting, Kauanoe Kamanä, president of 'Aha Pünana Leo, Inc. and parent of a child in the preschool argued that the success of the immersion method had been documented in Canada since the 1960s (Board of Education, 1987a). Kamanä also contended that a Hawaiian language immersion program would preserve and maintain the Hawaiian language and culture for all residents of the State. Other supporters argued that the program would strengthen the ethnic identity and esteem of Hawaiian children in the program. The group proposed that an elementary program (K-6) be established in the DOE, with formal English language instruction introduced in either grades 3 or 4.

Lilikala Kame'elehiwa, a Pünana Leo parent who had been involved in early lobbying for the program, said that she felt that if the BOE wouldn't support the program, it was, in a sense, a continuation of earlier oppression of the Hawaiian language and culture:

One of the things I used to bring up at the BOE is if our language is killed by you, the DOE, which it was, children were beaten for speaking Hawaiian, right?...Since you guys participated in this and you want to see our language die out. You don't want to support this program, it's called genocide. If we're no longer able to speak our language, our culture fades away. We don't know anything about our culture, except what we read in our English language texts, right? We can't speak Hawaiian. We don't even know what our names mean anymore. We don't have our identity anymore. We cease to exist as people on the face of this earth and that's wrong." (Lilikala, parent).

Kame'elehiwa said that her role became one of putting political pressure on the BOE. She felt that it was consistent harassment of the BOE on the part of parents and other activists that finally led to the establishment of the program in the public schools.

The BOE member we interviewed, however, had a different perspective on how the program finally came to be established as a DOE program. Francis McMillen, one of the only BOE members of Hawaiian ancestry, recalled being new as a BOE member when he first heard the testimony of the Pünana Leo parents and other language activists before the BOE's Hawaiian Education Affairs Committee (Francis, BOE member). According to McMillen, the parents and other language activists who had been coming to BOE meetings were very frustrated about not having their voices heard. McMillen said that after an April 1987 meeting he pulled the group aside and asked them to explain what they wanted. It wasn't until then that he realized that they were asking for an immersion program in the schools (Yamauchi & Ceppi, 1998). McMillen had felt that the group's earlier testimony was too fragmented and did not communicate what they wanted. He told the group to come back with a more cohesive presentation and that when they did he would assure that they would be heard.

One month later, the group reappeared–much earlier than McMillen thought that they would. The group presented "a more coherent case" that was favorably received by the Hawaiian Education Affairs Committee, which then appointed a sub-committee to prepare for September implementation (Board of Education, 1987b). On July 23, 1987, the BOE passed a resolution approving the program as a pilot K-1 project at four sites on the islands on O'ahu, Hawai'i, Maui, and Kaua'i (Board of Education, 1987b). The project was described as a "learning center" or magnet approach and would be housed on existing elementary school campuses. Immersion students would have their own classroom instruction conducted in Hawaiian, but would not be segregated from others at the school (Board of Education, 1987c).

Kaiapuni as a "Special Case"

Considering the typical procedures of the BOE, there are a number of ways in which the immersion program was treated as a special case. For example, the BOE typically establishes new programs at least two years in advance, allowing lead time for planning and time to appeal to the State legislature for funding. In the case of Hawaiian Immersion, however, the BOE formally approved the pilot project less than two months before it was implemented. In addition, it is more typical that once the BOE establishes a policy approving a particular program for development in the schools, it is then handed over to the DOE for implementation. In the Kaiapuni case, however, the BOE closely monitored the program's development itself, by placing the project under the purview of its Hawaiian Education Affairs Committee.

Early Implementation of the Program

In September 1987, two schools opened their doors to the first Kaiapuni classes. At Waiau Elementary School, 16 children in a combination K-1 classroom became the first immersion students on the island of O'ahu. On the island of Hawai'i, 18 students attended their combination K-1 class at Keaukaha Elementary School. Alohalani Housman, a parent of a Kaiapuni student and one of the first Kaiapuni teachers, expressed her thoughts on the early rush to begin:

From a parent's point of view, I don't think that the program started too early. This is because I really wanted my kids in the program. I wanted them to continue on from Pünana Leo . . . . From a teacher's point of view, I like to compare the program to a pearl. At first, when a grain of sand goes into an oyster, it is rough. No one would really desire to have it. After years and years of work . . . well, in essence we are shaping that pearl here. The pearl is the program. The longer it is around, the more refined it becomes, the greater it's value. It would have been nice to have had the luxury of starting after we had already had the resources and the teachers, but I don't think the program started too soon. (Alohalani, teacher)

Another teacher, who also taught one of the early classes shared a different perspective of the how the program started, "I always thought from the beginning that...we started too fast...[be]cause we started with nothing...there was never any point like development...and then start. It was okay start. And so, we've since the beginning we've played catch-up . . . " (Puanani, teacher). A review of the comments made by the historical interviewees suggest three main concerns shared by parents, teachers, principals and BOE members regarding the initial start up of Kaiapuni: (a) finding appropriate school sites, (b) hiring qualified teachers and (c) obtaining appropriate curriculum materials in the Hawaiian language.

Locating suitable school sites. Space is a limited commodity in the State of Hawai'i, and finding available classroom space in schools was one of the first challenges for the Kaiapuni program. A DOE administrator indicated that were many factors to consider, but a supportive administrator was crucial to where the program could be housed. The principal at Waiau felt that another reason her school was selected stemmed from her relationship with the State Assistant Superintendent, who knew she could help start the program with a minimum of disruption to the rest of her school (Doris, principal). Decisions about the location of the sites also included consideration of what facilities were available, the DOE's standards for classroom facilities, and accessibility to the sites for interested families.

Location of the school sites was a concern for parents because no allocations were made by the DOE to provide transportation to students who would attend a Kaiapuni school outside of their community. The principal of Waiau Elementary School felt that her school was chosen because it was centrally located on the island of O'ahu. Expressing a different perspective, the parent we interviewed felt that Waiau was not a good site because it was situated too far from the University of Hawai'i to benefit from university direction of curriculum development.

Finding qualified teachers. Finding teachers who were qualified to teach in the Hawaiian language was another challenge for the program. One principal stated:

My early concerns were for a qualified teacher . . . and I didn't just want someone who spoke Hawaiian, but I want[ed] a teacher...in every sense of the word who also spoke Hawaiian...so that's always been my concern, that [the] Hawaiian Immersion program must be about a quality education in [the] Hawaiian language (Sam, principal).

In addition to finding qualified teachers for the immersion program, recruiting teachers for the other "neighbor" islands has been an even greater concern. As BOE member McMillen pointed out, most students graduating from the University of Hawai'i at Mänoa in Hawaiian Studies are not interested in moving from O'ahu to neighboring islands. (Francis, BOE member).

Puanani Wilhelm and Alohalani Housman were the first Kaiapuni teachers at Keaukaha and Waiau Elementary Schools, respectively. Both teachers remember being recruited by their University of Hawai'i Hawaiian language teachers to become the first teachers for the program. Wilhelm said she became involved because suddenly the long list of potential teachers had dwindled to only a few who could really take the job (Yamauchi, & Ceppi, 1998). Wilhelm did not feel that she was asked because she was the "best qualified" person but because she was available. She was living out of state at the time the immersion program was being approved, but moved back to Hawai'i to become a Kaiapuni teacher.

Housman sees herself as a pioneer of Kaiapuni. She wanted to be the teacher at Waiau because her daughter was going to be in the first class, having just graduated from Pünana Leo. Housman found out the day before classes started the she was going to be the Kaiapuni teacher at Waiau. "I was excited. I really wanted the program to keep on going in the DOE, at the same time [I was] fearful. You don't know where you're going until you get there. It was overwhelming" (Alohalani, teacher).

Early Curriculum Development

Both of the first two teachers viewed the initial year as overwhelming, especially when they discovered there was little curriculum or materials for their classrooms. Although Pünana Leo curriculum developers provided some curriculum support, the teachers found that they created most of what they used: "The first years, I would stay up all night translating materials that we would read in five minutes the next day. I was trying to do it all" (Alohalani, teacher). McMillen explained that because the Hawaiian language had been suppressed for 100 years, materials did not exist in the language, except for old newspaper articles--which, as one teacher pointed out, was not the most appropriate text for early childhood education. Teachers spent hours translating text from English to Hawaiian and pasting the translations over the English words:

I spent pretty much everyday 'til ten o'clock just doing stuff for the next day cause there wasn't anything...And cutting and pasting translations...on math worksheets...you know with a white Avery label and pen?...So the translation for...the first grade math book was my handwriting on Avery labels for a long time. Which is very bizarre (Puanani, teacher).

Parents and other supporters also assisted in the development of curriculum. Faculty and students from the University of Hawai'i at Mänoa and Hilo Departments of Hawaiian Language and Hawaiian Studies lent their resources and time. Eventually, workshops were offered to facilitate Pünana Leo and Kaiapuni teachers' collaborating on various curriculum development projects.

Expanding the Program Through Grade 6

In 1989, the BOE Hawaiian Educational Affairs Committee organized a study group to examine the resources available to support the continuation of the Kaiapuni pilot project (Aizawa, 1989). Study group members included three BOE members, the DOE Hawaiian Studies specialist, three DOE administrators, and an elementary school principal. At the end of these deliberations, the study group made a number of recommendations to the BOE and the State Superintendent (Aizawa, 1989). Among them, the group recommended that the status of the pilot program be changed from that of a "pilot" program to one that was considered "limited." This would establish Kaiapuni as a regular DOE program, though limited in scope and size. Limited program status would also indicate that the program could not be replicated at all schools, but could be replicated in each district. The study group further recommended that the program expand to the next grade levels with English instruction introduced in grade 3 to prepare for standardized testing in English. The study group suggested that instruction during the fourth grade transition to a bilingual Hawaiian-English model with half of the instruction each day devoted to each language (Aiona, 1989, Aizawa, 1989). On June 15, 1989, the BOE approved the establishment of a "limited" K-6 Hawaiian language immersion program with transition to English during grades 4-6 (Aiona, 1990).

The BOE/DOE position that the program begin to transition to a bilingual model in grade 4 was challenged by parents and language activists who preferred that the program continue as a total immersion program. Eventually, the BOE accepted the position of the parents and approved a plan for continued total immersion with the introduction of English instruction in the fourth grade. By this time, however, the parent group felt that English language instruction should be delayed until grade 5. The parent group lobbied the BOE by presenting studies of other immersion programs that indicated the benefits of delayed exposure.

In August 1990, Sam No'eau Warner, a Hawaiian language instructor from the University of Hawai'i at Mänoa, submitted a report to the BOE Hawaiian Education Affairs Committee on behalf of the recently created Hawaiian Immersion Advisory Council. The report summarized the research that supported the group's recommendation to delay English language instruction until grade 5. The report also recommended limiting English instruction to between 45 and 60 minutes each day and to a room separate from where Hawaiian would be taught (Warner, 1990). Warner's report also cited evidence from the evaluation of the first three years of the Kaiapuni project, indicating that Kaiapuni students were developing proficient English literacy skills without formal instruction in that language. The DOE responded that although they agreed with the findings of Warner's report, they ultimately recommended against the delay of English instruction to the fifth grade because their (the DOE's) goals were necessarily broader than those stated in Warner's proposal:

Mr. Warner states that the "overall goal stated explicitly by parents has been the perpetuation of the indigenous language of Hawai'i." (p. 4). Recognizing the Department's responsibility to assist every child to achieve all the Foundation Program objectives, the Department's objectives are necessarily much broader....The Department of Education's overall goal might be stated as developing a truly bilingual child by the end of Grade 6 (Aizawa, 1989, p. 1).

DOE officials indicated that they were not willing to risk students' future academic success by delaying English instruction and by relying on the results of studies conducted elsewhere, "The demonstrated difficulty of our immigrant children to acquire the reading and writing skills in English, long after oral proficiency in English has been acquired, leaves us cautious about delaying the introduction of English skills too long" (Aizawa, 1989, p. 2). Assistant Superintendent Aizawa outlined the DOE's plans to introduce English in Kaiapuni classrooms for 60 minutes each day of the first semester of the fourth grade and two hours in the second semester. English instruction in grade 5 would continue for two hours each day and increase to 3 hours (50% of the day) in grade 6. On September 6, 1990, amidst strong opposition from the DOE, the BOE approved the delay of English instruction to grade 5 (McMillen, 1991).

Expansion to the Secondary Level

In 1991, the O'ahu immersion parent group recommended to the BOE that the program be expanded from a K-6 program to a K-12 program and that the BOE establish at least one secondary site on each island (Board of Education, 1991a). DOE administrators were concerned about expansion because of a general lack of appropriate curriculum, certified and language proficient teachers in subject areas, and lack of facilities (Board of Education, 1991b). The parent group responded by presenting secondary curriculum that they and others had prepared (Kame'elehiwa, 1991). They also presented a list of over 100 students at the University of Hawai'i who were interested in becoming immersion teachers (Nä Leo Käko'o O O'ahu, 1992). Kame'elehiwa, one of the parent lobbyists, suggested that the resistance on the part of the BOE and DOE to establish a secondary program stemmed from anti-Hawaiian sentiment.

They didn't think we had enough material in Hawaiian to warrant going all the way through twelfth grade...they didn't think there was anything more you could teach after sixth grade in Hawaiian (Lilikala, parent)

At an October 1991 meeting, the DOE recommended to the BOE that (a) Kaiapuni sixth grade students receive English language instruction for two hours each day; (b) the Kaiapuni program be expanded to grades 7 and 8, to include 50% of instruction in English and 50% of instruction in Hawaiian; and (c) program evaluation assist the DOE in making future modifications to the program (Board of Education, 1991b). Although the DOE continued to submit testimony expressing their concern about expansion of the program to the secondary level and their desire to increase English language instruction (e.g., Garson, 1992; Kawamoto, 1992; Saiki, 1992), in September, 1992, the BOE again sided with the parents and approved a plan to expand the program through grade 12, with one hour of English instruction each day from grades 5-12 (McMillen, 1994).

In 1998, students from the lead Kaiapuni classes graduated from high school, the first students in over a century to have completed their elementary and secondary education in the Hawaiian language. That year, there were approximately 1,700 youth involved in the program, indicating a dramatic increase, since the program's inception, among those under age 18 who spoke the Hawaiian language.

Kaiapuni supporters suggest that beyond language revitalization outcomes, the program is also more effective in teaching Hawaiian children than is typical of the English language public school program (Benham & Heck, 1998; Yamauchi, et al., 1999). As a group, Hawaiians are among the lowest scoring groups in the U.S. on standardized measures of achievement (Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 1994; Takenaka, 1995). Kaiapuni advocates argue that the program is a more culturally compatible form of education for Hawaiian children because of its emphasis on the Hawaiian language, the Hawaiian culture, and an indigenous perspective on curriculum and teaching methods.

Overview of Immersion Education

In this section, we provide a brief description of immersion education, both regarding its typical and variable features.

Theoretical Rationale

Immersion education is based on the premise that students can learn a second language in a way similar to how they learned their first language: through meaningful interactions with more proficient members of the language community . This perspective is consistent with a sociocultural approach to learning and development articulated by Russian theorist L. S. Vygotsky . According to Vygotsky, all psychological phenomena, including cognition, beliefs, and values, initiate from interactions with others in one's home and community. Thus, development is inherently social. Through their interactions with peers, parents, and teachers, children appropriate the language and other symbols of their social world so that these systems become their own ways of knowing and doing. Applying this perspective to a language learning context: children appropriate the words, grammar, and sociolinguistic functions of the languages they hear and use in everyday conversation and activity.

Snow, Met, and Genesee point out that another rationale for immersion education is that subject matter content (e. g., mathematics, science, etc.) provides both a motivational and a cognitive foundation for language learning. Learning the language becomes important and valuable to students because it provides them access to learning about the content. For example, when Kaiapuni students are studying social studies and learning about the history of their community, they are motivated to learn the vocabulary associated with that content and the language functions needed to complete their assignments. In other words, the content curriculum provides a meaningful context in which to learn a second language.

The content also provides a cognitive basis for language learning. Sociocultural and information processing approaches to learning emphasize that new information will be better remembered and appropriated when it is connected to an existing and meaningful knowledge base. In language immersion education, "meaning provides conceptual or cognitive hangers on which language functions can be hung" (Snow et al., 1989, p. 202). In other words, new linguistic information has a better chance of being appropriated by learners because it is connected to an organized body of content matter. In the example provided above, the vocabulary and language functions presented in the social studies lesson will be better learned because they are taught in a meaningful context, rather than for language learning per se. The integration of content and language instruction is also warranted in that it allows for the learning of genres (e. g., scientific report writing, storytelling, etc.) specific to particular content areas (Snow et al., 1989). The learning of these genres may be necessary for mastery of both content-specific and general academic learning.

Typical Features of Immersion Education

Immersion education is a form of bilingual education. Johnson and Swain reviewed language immersion programs worldwide and concluded that there are eight features that are typical of such programs. Although programs vary, these features are usually present in some form. First, the program teaches a second language by using it as the medium of instruction. That is, students learn the target language through hearing it in an everyday context and by using it with their teachers and peers, rather than by taking second language classes conducted in their first language. Beginning on the first day of school, Kaiapuni kindergarten teachers speak to their students primarily in Hawaiian. During the first few months of school the children usually respond to their teachers and peers in English. By the end of their kindergarten year, however, most Kaiapuni kindergarten students are fluent in Hawaiian and address both teacher and peers in the second language (Slaughter, 1997). These children become fluent in Hawaiian by using the language in meaningful, everyday communication, much like the way they became fluent in their first language.

The second feature of immersion programs is that the curriculum parallels the local majority language curriculum (Johnson & Swain, 1997). For example, students are expected to gain competencies in the same subjects as students in the majority language program, including mathematics, science, and the majority language. Likewise, students in the Kaiapuni program are expected to achieve the same content and performance standards as students in the English language program, including proficiency in English.

Immersion programs also offer overt support for the first language development (Johnson & Swain, 1997). Although the actual form and quantity of support varies, at a minimum, programs offer instruction in the first language. In the Kaiapuni program, formal English instruction is introduced in grade 5 for one hour each day. The policy of the Kaiapuni program is to continue this pattern of English language instruction through grade 12. The emphasis is on additive bilingualism, which is the fourth feature typical of immersion program. This feature distinguishes Kaiapuni and like programs from others which are sometimes mislabeled as "immersion programs" when their goal is to replace the students' first language with English or another majority language (Johnson & Swain, 1997). Additive bilingualism means that students will be competent in both the first and second languages. At the end of the program, immersion students should be as proficient in the first language as their peers in non-immersion programs. In addition, they should be highly proficient in the target language (i. e., the language of instruction) though not as competent as native speakers. This seems to be true of the Kaiapuni program. Program evaluations indicate that Kaiapuni students become as proficient in English as their non- immersion peers and also attain a high level of proficiency in Hawaiian (Slaughter, 1997).

A fifth feature of immersion programs is that students' exposure to the second language is largely confined to the classroom (Johnson & Swain, 1997). Typically, there are few opportunities outside of school for students to hear and use the target language. In the case of indigenous languages, an immersion program like Kaiapuni may be established because the language is threatened with extinction. Although there has been a resurgence of interest in the Hawaiian language over the last three decades and Hawaiian is also an official language of the State, most Hawai'i residents do not speak Hawaiian. This includes the majority of Kaiapuni parents (Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001). Therefore, beyond school, there are few contexts for students to be exposed to the Hawaiian language.

Johnson and Swain (1997) suggest that a sixth feature of immersion programs is that students enter with similar and often a limited proficiency in the target language. This homogeneity makes it easier for teachers to adjust the curriculum and pedagogy to meet the second language needs of students. In the Kaiapuni program, most students enter kindergarten with little or no experience speaking the Hawaiian language. Teachers use Hawaiian almost exclusively when speaking to the children, although they employ various strategies to assist the students in their learning Hawaiian. All Kaiapuni teachers are bilingual in the students' first and second languages (English and Hawaiian). This is another typical feature of immersion programs (Johnson & Swain, 1997). Teachers' proficiency in students' first language allows students to communicate in that language when necessary, especially in early months of the program .

Finally, Johnson and Swain (1997) describe the culture of the typical immersion program as that of the majority community. That is, the culture of the classroom is usually more like the home culture of the students than the culture of the target language community. The Kaiapuni program differs somewhat in this regard. One of the goals of Kaiapuni educators is to create a classroom culture that is more "Hawaiian" than is usually found in the English language program. On the other hand, because most Kaiapuni students are of Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian ancestry, this means that the culture of the classroom incorporates the students' cultural heritage. Thus, regarding this particular feature, the program does not quite fit the typical profile of immersion classrooms. Kaiapuni educators strive to create a classroom culture consistent with the target language, which is compatible with the ancestral culture of most students.

Variable Features

Johnson and Swain (1997) also describe the ways in which immersion programs vary from one another. One way that programs differ is regarding when in a student's educational program instruction in the second language is introduced. Programs are labeled as early, mid, or late, dependant upon when instruction in the target language begins. The Kaiapuni program is an early immersion program because instruction in the Hawaiian language begins in kindergarten. Early immersion programs begin target language instruction sometime between preschool and third grade. Mid immersion is used to describe programs that start teaching using the target language in grades 4 or 5. Late immersion means that students start in grades 6 or 7 or later. Some programs begin in high school or college. The latter is sometimes called "late, late" immersion (Johnson & Swain, 1997).

Immersion programs also vary with regard to the extent of immersion (Johnson & Swain, 1997). Kaiapuni is considered a full or total immersion program because there is no first language instruction in early years. Partial immersion is used to refer to programs in which 50% or less of the school day is taught in the second language. In some late and college programs, only particular subjects are taught using the target language. Programs also vary regarding the proportion of first and second language instruction that exists throughout the program. In some programs first language instruction is withheld for a few early years, and then gradually increased. In other programs, like Kaiapuni, the proportion of first language instruction, once introduced, is held constant throughout the students' program.

Programs vary regarding the amount and type of support provided to students as they transition from instruction in their first language to instruction in their second language (Johnson & Swain, 1997). Some programs include special curriculum to assist students' in adopting the second language. Other programs offer teacher support in the form of in-service education to help teachers to better assist the second language needs of their students. The Kaiapuni program offers support for teachers to learn about immersion pedagogical methods and share ideas with colleagues from different schools. All Kaiapuni teachers have teaching credentials, but until the recent development of teacher education programs specifically designed for Hawaiian immersion instruction, many teachers entered the program with little or no experience teaching in bilingual or immersion classrooms. This is typical of immersion teachers throughout the U. S. (Met and Lorenz, 1997). Most of their preparation for immersion teaching occurs "on the job."

Immersion programs also differ regarding the resources available for curriculum and teacher development and the commitment displayed by those involved (Johnson & Swain, 1997). Immersion programs often require more resources for curriculum and staff development than programs that teach in one language, particularly for start-up activities. If the target language is threatened with language extinction, as is the case of the Kaiapuni program, extra resources may be needed for the development of appropriate materials in the target language. The Kaiapuni program began with teachers and parents developing most of the curriculum. This generally continues to be the case, although there are some other resources available for curriculum development through the Department of Education, the University of Hawai'i system, and non-profit agencies.

The strong commitment of Kaiapuni teachers, parents, and students is evident. Although the program has expanded each year since its founding in 1987, the funding appropriated by the Board of Education for Hawaiian immersion education has not increased. Each year teachers and family members seek additional funds through grants from community agencies and by sponsoring fundraisers to supplement that which is provided by the State. The commitment by policy makers has been mixed. Though unsure at first whether early total immersion was the best form of Hawaiian language instruction, the Board of Education and the State legislature have continued to support the continued expansion of the Kaiapuni program. However, their failure to increase program funding to accompany this expansion is an indication of their less than whole-hearted commitment.

Immersion programs also vary with regard to participants' attitudes toward the culture of the target language (Johnson & Swain, 1997). As discussed earlier, the classroom culture of a typical immersion program is more like the culture of the first language community than that of the second language. In these programs, educators and family members do not necessarily want students' to adopt the culture of the second language. For example, it is likely that teachers and family members of students in a Japanese immersion program in the U. S. would not expect their students to become culturally more Japanese, although they might expect students learn more about Japanese people and to adopt a more favorable attitude toward them. For indigenous language immersion programs like the Kaiapuni program, however, it may be a goal of the program to incorporate the second language culture. In the Kaiapuni program, students are expected to adopt Hawaiian values such as aloha (love, kindness) and to exercise Hawaiian practices such as malama 'aina (taking care of the land) (Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001).

Johnson and Swain (1997) point out that immersion programs differ regarding the status of the second language. In some communities, the first and second languages have near-equal status. That is, individuals do not experience either positive or negative discrimination based on which language they use in the community. However, in many situations, like in Hawai'i, one language (in this case English) still dominates the local community use. Those involved in the program constantly battle misconceptions of outsiders about the Hawaiian language and Hawaiian immersion education. One Kaiapuni educator recounted a visit to an immersion class by a state legislator. The students in the class happened to be singing and dancing when the politician was there. The legislator erroneously assumed that music and dance were the main activities of the program–a stereotype of Hawaiian culture (Kaomea, in press).

Attitudes about the target language may also become apparent when an immersion program shares a campus with a majority language program, as is the case of most Kaiapuni schools. We have found that parents on the "English side" of a school-within-a-school campus that houses Kaiapuni classrooms, sometimes do not even know about the existence of their Hawaiian medium counterparts. Those that are aware, often have misunderstandings about the program. For example, parents of students in the English program at one school thought the Kaiapuni students do not learn how to read and write in English. Thus, it is sometimes difficult for program teachers and family members to work against these less than ideal attitudes about the Hawaiian language and the immersion program.

Finally, Johnson and Swain (1997) suggest that immersion programs vary regarding "what counts as success" (p. 11). In other words, programs differ with respect to how they are evaluated. The extent to which a program is considered successful is dependent upon program goals and the values of the supporting community. Some teachers in the Kaiapuni program view the program to be successful, largely by its continued existence. This is in light of how difficult it was to establish and insure the continuance of the program in the public schools (Yamauchi et al., 1999).

Many Kaiapuni supporters view language revitalization as a major goal of the program. They deem the program as successful based on the sheer numbers of young people who now speak Hawaiian. Considering that only 30 youth spoke Hawaiian before the program was implemented, Kaiapuni has contributed to a 600% increase in the number of young Hawaiian speakers. Children and adults in the program have also learned more about Hawaiian values and culture, another goal of the program. Because many involved, especially policy makers and family members, are concerned about students' English language development, program success is also judged by comparing students' English proficiency to that of their peers in the English language program. Students' Hawaiian language proficiency is valued, but there are currently no objective standards to compare students' developing Hawaiian competencies at each grade level. Program developers and teachers are currently working to develop these standards.

Efforts to Sustain the Program

The Kaiapuni program continues today as a program that is funded primarily through monies allocated by the Hawai'i State Board of Education with additional funding from the state legislature. Efforts to sustain the program have focused on curriculum development and teacher recruitment and professional development.

Curriculum Development

When the Kaiapuni program began, teachers assumed that the curriculum would closely parallel the English language program. They were, thus, more concerned with the development of materials than that of new curriculum. Later, however, program educators began to question whether the English language curriculum was appropriate for the Hawaiian program. Currently, most teachers focus on the simultaneous development of curriculum and materials. They view their curricula as that which accomplishes the goals of the English language curriculum rather than being just a Hawaiian translation. For example, in mathematics, some teachers have worked together to consider where concepts such as fractions and geometry appear in traditional Hawaiian culture and how to present other mathematical ideas in ways that are consistent with a Hawaiian approach to numeracy. Watahomigie and McCarty (1994; 1997) describe the development of a program in Peach Springs, Arizona that uses the American Indian language Hualapai as a language of instruction. Similar to early Kaiapuni efforts, educators at Peach Springs initially tried to develop their program to be parallel to the "regular" English language program. Like teachers in the Kaiapuni program, Hualapai educators no longer try to do this and instead view their program as separate and unique from the English program (Watahomigie & McCarty, 1994; 1997).

Incorporation of cultural values. The formal goals of the Kaiapuni program include students learning about Hawaiian values and culture. In practice, there is a wide range of ways in which this is accomplished. In some cases, teachers try to teach in a more Hawaiian way. Other teachers emphasize Hawaiian values. For example, the Hawaiian value of aloha is an important theme in many classrooms. Aloha has many English translations, including love, affection, and kindness . The teachers and parents we interviewed discussed the ways in which the program emphasizes aloha. They felt that compared to the English language program, Kaiapuni teachers generally have more aloha for students and students have more aloha for each other. Part of this may be based on the Hawaiian concept of 'ohana or extended family that is also emphasized in the program. Program participants describe teachers as acting like extended family aunts and uncles toward their students and students acting like siblings toward their peers.

In traditional Hawaiian culture, the extended family is an important societal structure. Older siblings assist in care of younger children . In addition to parents, grandparents, aunties, and uncles, are also involved in the raising of young people. Grandparents and other elders or küpuna are highly respected for their wisdom and younger family members often seek their advice and knowledge. These ideas are also incorporated into the Kaiapuni program. Since the beginning, the program has been known for its active participation of family members. In addition, küpuna, who often speak Hawaiian as their first language, visit the schools regularly. The latter has also been a way to increase students' exposure to native speakers of Hawaiian.

Development of Text and Other Materials in Hawaiian

Translated materials. Almost all of the early Kaiapuni materials were translations of English texts. Teachers, parents, and other bilingual assistants translated English books into Hawaiian. The Hawaiian text was then printed on to adhesive labels and pasted in English books. Sometimes the translations were handwritten directly on to the labels. This cut and paste strategy was not ideal, but practical, given the immediacy of the situation. The first Kaiapuni students were often curious about what could be found under the labels, and they sometimes peeled them off to reveal the English words beneath.

Kaiapuni program developers translated many tradebooks, including Charlotte's Web, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Pipi Longstocking, and My Side of the Mountain. Program educators also translated several textbook series. This included a reading series for grades K-2, a mathematics series for grades K-2, a mathematics series for grades 3-8, and a science series for grades 3-4. Materials for science and social studies lessons that were distributed by the University of Hawai'i Mänoa Curriculum, Research, and Development Group (CRDG) were also translated for use in Kaiapuni grades 6-8 and 4-6, respectively.

Ten years after the program began we interviewed 37 Kaiapuni teachers about their perspectives on the program. We found that most teachers were still using translated texts. Several interviewees discussed the limitations of this practice. They explained that the translated texts were not consistent with traditional Hawaiian values and thinking. Because these texts were originally written in English by authors from the U.S. mainland, they tended to convey a Western and non-indigenous perspective. A few teachers also felt that something is always lost when a text is translated. As one teacher said, "If you can read a book in the language that it was originally written, you should. There is something lost about the beauty of Charlotte's Web if you don't read it in English."

Another reason Kaiapuni teachers prefer original Hawaiian texts is because they have found that students often have more difficulty reading translated materials compared to those originally written in Hawaiian. As a program administrator explained, "The teachers end up spending a lot of time explaining what [the text] means. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense in Hawaiian." Accurate translation does not ensure equivalence of concepts and meaning.

Materials that originate in Hawaiian. Many Kaiapuni teachers suggest that the preferred alternative for developing curriculum for an indigenous immersion program is to create original materials in the language. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. For example, writers and illustrators can be contracted to produce new materials in the target language. Kaiapuni program developers have commissioned Hawaiian speaking authors to write new books for students. The problem with this approach is that it is often difficult to find authors who can write in Hawaiian and can do so for a young audience. Authors are also contracted on a part-time basis. When program developers are able to find people who are qualified to write children's books in Hawaiian, the authors usually have other full time commitments. Consequently, these new books often take a long time to be completed.

The establishment of university partnerships is another means of developing materials for an immersion program, particularly if there are departments that teach the target language. In order to keep up with the demand for new materials written in Hawaiian, the Kaiapuni program has developed partnerships with university Hawaiian language departments. Advanced Hawaiian language students from the University of Hawai'i Hilo and Mänoa campuses create materials for Kaiapuni classrooms as assignments for their courses. At University of Hawai'i at Mänoa, students can enroll in a course specifically designed for the development of Kaiapuni curriculum. For example, university students produced a book about significant sites on the island of O'ahu. This strategy has some if the same problems as the situation with contracted authors; namely, even if university students are proficient in the target language, they may not have enough background to prepare materials appropriate for children. In addition, university students are also not necessarily good writers. Consequently, what university students produce must sometimes be edited by teachers before they can be used in Kaiapuni classrooms.

Partnerships with university teacher preparation programs can also support the development of curriculum and materials. One Kaiapuni school developed a partnership with the university to create a teacher preparation program for Hawaiian immersion teachers. At this school, the student teachers bring a variety of disciplinary expertise, as many have majored in other fields, such as science or Hawaiian Studies, before seeking teacher certification. The curriculum and materials students prepare for their certification program are sometimes used more widely by the school. Unlike their peers who are not education majors, these college students come with more pedagogical knowledge and understanding of children's development and literature which is helpful to successful development of materials.

At most Kaiapuni sites, teachers create some of their own materials in Hawaiian and photocopy them for students. Promoting the development of immersion teachers' own curriculum and original texts can be one of the most fruitful means of developing new curriculum and materials in the second language, as teachers are familiar with their students' needs and second language proficiencies (Met & Lorenz, 1997). However, this creates a heavy burden on teachers who already have a challenging job of teaching in an indigenous language immersion program. Most school systems do not have the resources to provide teachers release time from other duties to engage in curriculum development nor are most teachers trained to develop instructional materials (Met & Lorenz, 1997).

Nevertheless, the Kaiapuni program has found that educator-made materials are one of the most promising means of curriculum development. Kaiapuni program developers have attempted to facilitate teachers' curriculum development by bringing educators together for various workshops throughout the school year and for extended periods during the summer. The summer sessions are sometimes planned in collaboration with the university so that teachers receive university credits for the work. At these meetings, teachers collaboratively conduct research, write lessons, and share curriculum products with colleagues. For example, program developers sponsored a workshop on 'ölelo no'eau, traditional Hawaiian proverbs. At the workshop, program teachers learned about the meaning and stories behind the proverbs and collaborated with colleagues to develop curriculum that incorporated the proverbs. At other workshops, teachers travel to culturally important sites, visit with Hawaiian speaking küpuna (elders), and participate in other culturally meaningful activities. After these cultural activities, they work together to develop related curriculum and activities. This is similar to the process described earlier that is used by Yup'ik teachers in collaboration with community elders (Lipka & Ilustik, 1997). The Yup'ik inservice is structured as a teacher study group, which has the potential for more sustained collaboration than "one-shot" workshops, as study groups tend to meet more frequently and on a more permanent basis (e.g., once a week or bi-monthly).

Teaching in a Hawaiian Way

When teachers in the program talk about their work as immersion educators, many of them emphasize that they are teaching in a Hawaiian way. They are referring to both a curricular emphasis on Hawaiian studies and their efforts to incorporate pedagogical methods that are consistent with traditional Hawaiian culture. Earlier in this chapter we described how Kaiapuni teachers try to foster a relationship with their students that is more like that of an aunt or uncle in a Hawaiian extended family. Other ways that Kaiapuni teachers attempt to incorporate a Hawaiian approach to education are reflected in their enactment of two traditional Hawaiian proverbs (Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001).

One of the proverbs "Ma ka hana ka 'ike," translates in English to "In working one learns" (Pukui, 1983, p. 227). Kaiapuni teachers incorporate this proverb by emphasizing hands-on activities and demonstrations. Observational learning is emphasized. Teachers also plan activities where students can work directly with materials, as opposed to simply reading or hearing about it. For example, educators at several Kaiapuni sites have cultivated a lo'i kalo (taro patch) that they and their students use in their study of science, social science, and Hawaiian language. Students learn about kalo (taro) and its traditional and modern uses. At some schools, students work in the lo'i alongside küpuna (Hawaiian elders) and other community members. Thus, students also learn about social protocol and their relationships with others in the community. One of the teachers at this site holds weekend Hawaiian language classes for family members in the lo'i. Parents, grandparents, and children may attend. Although the Hawaiian language skills of the adult students may be limited, they are required to only speak Hawaiian while working in the lo'i. Thus, family members experience this as a form of Hawaiian language immersion education.

Many Kaiapuni teachers also incorporate the proverb, "'A'ohe pau ka 'ike i ka hälau ho'okähi ("Knowledge is not taught at the same school;" Pukui, 1983, p. 24.) This proverb is meant to convey that education can take place in many places, both in and outside of the classroom. Kaiapuni teachers emphasize this proverb by planning field trips for their students to visit community and cultural sites. These activities are incorporated into the classroom, as students write and talk about their experiences. Kaiapuni students often attend political rallies to lobby for their program's continuance. Many teachers see these activities as part of their students' educational experiences, a first hand opportunity to learn about the history and politics of language and education. Kaiapuni teachers also encourage their students to visit with küpuna (Hawaiian elders) in the community. These elders often speak Hawaiian as their first language or have other cultural knowledge that is not found in books. Most Kaiapuni teachers are second language Hawaiian learners and many did not learn about the Hawaiian culture in a traditional manner, that is, as it is passed down orally through their families. Thus, Kaiapuni teachers realize that küpuna are an important source of information for students and that knowledge comes from sources both outside and within the school boundaries.

Finally, Kaiapuni teachers attempt to incorporate a more Hawaiian pedagogy by having students memorize Hawaiian oli (chants), mele (songs), and ka'ao (legends) (Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001). This is consistent with a traditional Hawaiian emphasis on memorization and recitation .

The Recruitment and Professional Development of Teachers

Language Qualifications

In the next section we discuss the recruitment and professional development of indigenous language immersion teachers. The ideal immersion teachers are fluent in both the target and majority language and are also skilled in language teaching. Met and Lorenz (1997) suggest that the ideal teacher is one with native or near-native proficiency in the target language. For many indigenous language immersion programs this ideal may be difficult to achieve, as there may be few native speakers or those among them who are interested in becoming a full-time teacher. For example, in both the Kaiapuni and the Kura Kaupapa Mäori Mäori language immersion program in New Zealand , the majority of teachers second language speakers of the indigenous languages.

The assessment of prospective teachers' language skills may present a challenge for program developers. In non-indigenous immersion U. S. programs, the most common form of language proficiency assessment is an informal oral interview with a staff member (Met & Lorenz, 1997). In many cases, the interviewer will not have had formal preparation in language assessment, and this sometimes results in an over-inflated assessment of the person's skills. In the Kaiapuni program, the principal hires teachers for each site. Except at the two sites which are exclusively for Hawaiian immersion students, most of the principals are not Hawaiian speakers, and therefore, are unable to judge a person's Hawaiian language proficiency. They must instead rely on immersion teachers or other Hawaiian speakers.

Teacher Recruitment and Preparation

Much of the recruitment of teachers for the Kaiapuni program takes place through university Hawaiian language classes. A recruitment video was produced by program supporters and is shown in university language classes. The videotape describes the Kaiapuni and Pünana Leo (the private Hawaiian language preschools) programs, includes footage from those classrooms and interviews with Hawaiian immersion teachers. Because Hawaiian Language and Hawaiian Studies students typically do not have the pedagogical background necessary for teaching, the Kaiapuni program has supported partnerships with the university to develop teacher preparation programs specifically for Hawaiian language immersion education.

Two branches of the University of Hawai'i have developed teacher preparation programs for Hawaiian language immersion education. Students in each of the programs complete their practice teaching at Kaiapuni schools and develop curriculum for the program as part of their assignments. Both teacher preparation programs offer much of the students' coursework in the medium of the Hawaiian language, so that participants also experience a form of immersion education as students themselves. All the coursework of one of the programs is offered on site at a Kaiapuni school. One advantage of this is that it allows mentor teachers to be involved in the coursework, sometimes as instructors. It has also allowed the university faculty to offer professional development to the mentor teachers, in conjunction with the teacher preparation program. Once the student teachers are able to "take over" the early morning routine of their practicum classes, their mentor teachers are released to meet with colleagues and university faculty.

Professional Development

Sustained professional development of immersion teachers is important, given that teachers usually do not have much preparation for immersion teaching prior to accepting their jobs (Met & Lorenz, 1997). The Kaiapuni program offers professional development to teachers in both language and curriculum development. Language development sessions are often organized around the language needed to teach specific content areas; for example, to discuss the vocabulary and sociolinguistic functions necessary to teach science. Because the Hawaiian language was banned for nearly a century, it did not develop words for many modern contexts. Although new Hawaiian vocabulary has been developed, teachers often are unfamiliar with this specific vocabulary (Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001). Other professional development workshops are planned around curriculum themes, often including cultural presentations that can then be incorporated into classroom activities (as discussed earlier). Some schools have also organized teacher study groups for more sustained professional development around teachers' needs and interests. These study groups often seek cultural informants to assist in their understanding of cultural traditions and knowledge that can be incorporated into the curriculum.