Blindsided: How Did A High-Performing Bilingual Program Become Disposable Overnight?
By Elizabeth Silva, Bancroft Elementary Parent
On January 28, families at Bancroft Elementary in the Mount Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) received an email that would upend our children’s education. The district announced it would phase out the Two-Way Spanish Dual Immersion program at the school, the longest-running and highest-performing Spanish immersion program in the district, and shift new kindergarteners to Woodside Elementary School beginning in 2026–2027.
The timing was stunning. The notice came fewer than two weeks before kindergarten enrollment opened. There was no advance parent engagement, and no consultation with the English learner advisory committee (ELAC) or district English learner advisory committee (DELAC). There was no alignment with the Local Control and Accountability Plan. The School Site Council had no advance notice and was never asked for input. No outreach happened to the very families and teachers who built the program. The district’s Multilingual Education Department wasn’t consulted, despite such programs falling under their purview. Together with the teachers, they all learned of the fate of the program on January 28. In a district that speaks often about equity and inclusion, the decision was delivered without either.
The justifications have shifted repeatedly.
First, the district cited low performance among English Learners. Yet district data shows English Learners in Bancroft’s dual immersion program outperform their peers in Bancroft’s English-only program, and test results of students in the Bancroft Elementary dual immersion program rank highest among the district’s six Spanish immersion sites. Next, officials cited a teacher shortage, only to publicly acknowledge that information was incorrect. Capacity concerns were raised, though there is space in the English-only classrooms, and after-school care expansion had already been approved without displacing classrooms. Later, financial pressures were mentioned vaguely without sharing any specifics, but relocating the program appears cost-neutral in staffing and coincides with low enrollment at Woodside.
Parents are left asking: If the program is underperforming, why move it rather than fix it? And if it is high-performing, why dismantle it at all?
This decision also lands in a district with relevant recent history. In 2022, when a Walnut Creek group attempted to form a breakaway district, the California State Board of Education unanimously rejected the petition because it would have increased segregation and harmed remaining schools. Now families wonder whether dismantling a diverse, high-performing dual immersion program, the only one in the city of Walnut Creek, could quietly produce similar demographic consequences, this time from within.
Bancroft’s program is more than an instructional model. It is a magnet for Latino families and one of the few consistent sources of diversity feeding into Foothill Middle School and Northgate High School. Was a demographic analysis conducted before this move? What are the projected impacts on those schools? Why are other schools in MDUSD allowed to retain a dual-immersion classroom while Bancroft is not?
More than 10 Uniform Complaints have been filed alleging violations of multiple California Education Code provisions requiring parent consultation before major programmatic changes. The district has 60 days to review the complaints. But Kindergarten enrollment is happening now. Five hundred community members have signed a petition asking the district to stop the removal of the Spanish Immersion Program at Bancroft. Seventy-five parents and students have attended the last two school board meetings. City leaders and state legislators have expressed concern. Yet Superintendent Adam Clark has not substantively answered parents’ questions, nor paused implementation.
This issue sits at the intersection of educational equity, district accountability, and California’s commitment to multilingualism under Proposition 58. Are districts required to engage communities before dismantling language acquisition programs? Were in-boundary parents surveyed about their rights under Prop 58? Did Woodside families request this program — or is it being imposed? What steps are being taken to ensure the program survives in a new school?
And most importantly, does MDUSD believe the laws requiring consultation apply here?
Parents are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for transparency, lawful process, and a pause. When access to multilingual education can be removed with nine days’ notice — and questions are met with silence — trust erodes.
California has made a promise to expand bilingual education, not quietly dismantle it. The families in this program are simply asking the district to honor that commitment.
Previous article
Next article
We’re reaching a critical point in education in this state. Hard decisions will have to be made.
Hard decisions about what? It’s a red herring to say it’s x program or y program. Especially since — as one example — Special Ed and Multilingual Programming come from different pots of money, literally. The zero-sum gamming and identity politics need to stop. Too many families and children are being terribly hurt by failed policies and by atrociously bad local leadership, including the superintendent who discriminates against latinos and doesn’t care about this program (a real question is if he’s actively trying to dismantle it).
It IS NOT lack of money or low budgets. We’re in the 4th largest economy in the WORLD. This is a lack of priorities for education — yes. But’s it’s also a profound history of discrimination against browner, latino, multilingual parts of the district compared to whiter areas. E.g. (as just one example): Since 2016, whiter Clayton students get preference of browner Concord and latino Walnut Creek, for schools which are literally IN Walnut Creek? Say, what? And then there’s the new Mitchell Development, which is closer geographically to Valle Verde, and if the district is so in need to filling seats at Woodside, that new development could be sent there.
What is NOT appropriate is for a superintendent to LIE on the news (we can show how their data is wrong; they’re crafting stories that are literally false by splicing and dicing data to fit their narrative, which is either negligence or ignorance — which is it?); discriminate against latinos (we have proof, at multiple junctures) while giving preferred residency status to whites. Hmmm. Talk about hypocrisy on the “equity and inclusion” front. Oh yeah, and one of the board members hates on LGTBQ and is currently recruiting more MAGA to the school board. It’s going to be an interesting school board election this year, especially if this moves to a civil rights complaint > lawsuit.
Interesting position.
My mother spoke six languages and used that ability to great effect throughout her life. She saw it as a valuable tool.
Good post.
How many affected by this?
400+ current families at Bancroft alone, plus the ~60 incoming families. Add in Shore Acres where the district also tried to pull a fast one — similar to their terribly planning they did against Shore Acres 6 years ago — and it’s probably 600+ families just between these two schools.
400 current Bancroft families did not sign. That number includes non-Bancroft supporters.
If we’re talking about community backing, look at the difference: Shore Acres families have clear, public support from their teachers and school community. There have been no current Bancroft teachers publicly advocating to keep the dual program in place, and monolingual Bancroft families are not rallying for it to stay either.
The program is being moved, not eliminated. That distinction matters.
Teachers have said they are afraid to speak out in support for fear or retaliation, it’s really sad. The program is being ended at Bancroft and a new program is opening at a different school.
Think it’s a money issue…. like most things these days.
No, it’s a lack of priorities issue by a superintendent who discriminates against latinos and then lies about it on Telemundo. Literally. The gaslighting is akin to what the federal government is doing. It’s rather striking…. alternative facts and Enrollment Services acting as dictator, accountable to no one.
Afraid transparency is giving way to expedience these days.
My father was fond of telling me they made him study Latin in school. He would use it to impress and it did. Learning a language is important and fun and a good tool to have for the future.
I speak 5 languages, none of it was ever funded by tax payers. Why do we have to have bilingual or Spanish and english? We speak English in America, regardless of however many other immigrants there is, i don’t see you adjusting to make schools speak Mandarin when it’s the second most spoken language in all of the world. Let these funds go to other kids too, not just the latinos all the time, they always demand things to be translated or handed to them like free samples at costco. Leave the funding to be decided by the leaders you appointed. Stop pressuring everyone to always pity, maybe they should learn to adjust to American standards if they want to stay in America.
You may “speak” 5 languages, but based upon this post, your English grammar and spelling need work. I doubt you took formal instruction in the 5 languages you reference, and it shows. Sharing language and culture through public offerings or private offerings benefits us all. We are a melting pot. Demeaning the poorest or the newest among us for needing the stuff that sustains us, well, that’s just more American hubris, and it is sad. We are all immigrants or children of immigrants.