This dissertation is a mixed-methods study of language ideologies and literacy practices in Dual Language (DL) programs. The ideologies of participants were examined in five schools with DL programs, one specific DL program at Presidio Primary, two first grade DL classrooms and in students' homes.

The quantitative data consisted of a questionnaire, Teachers' Language Ideologies (TLI), consisting of demographic, five-point Likert scale and open-ended items. MANOVA was applied to 209 questionnaires to explore group differences on four factors of language ideologies. Participants' bilingualism had little influence on their language ideologies and practices while teacher assignment and certificate had a significant influence.

Qualitative research methods included observations, interviews and Critical Discourse Analysis. Official Discourse was uncovered through policy documents and administrator interviews. Analysis showed asymmetrical treatment of two programs: discourse on transitional bilingual/ESL programs demonstrated language-as-problem and assimilationist ideologies whereas discourse on DL programs demonstrated language-as-resource and linguistic pluralism.

Qualitative findings also showed there was a divide between Spanish dominant and English dominant mothers related to DL implementation and literacy instruction. Spanish dominant mothers questioned the practice of delaying formal introduction of English literacy. Despite the fact that their parents had enrolled them in the DL program, not all students held positive views of Spanish and English at Presidio Primary. The children appeared to be most influenced by their families' perspectives on language rather than the school environment. Remarkably, children's ideological stances mirrored closely those of their mothers, demonstrating the importance of parental voice for successful DL program implementation.