May/June 1998

The Bilingual Education Debate

A long-term view may be necessary to recognize benefits of bilingual programs
by Laurel Shaper Walters

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the federal Bilingual Education Act, the original legislation that created special programs for students who are learning to speak English. Yet instead of celebrations, bilingual education is facing attacks and reexamination from all sides.

In California, the state with the largest percentage of limited-English-proficient (LEP) students, voters will decide on June 2 whether bilingual classrooms should be eliminated and replaced with one-year, sheltered English-immersion classes (see Models of Language Instruction,"). Officially named Proposition 227, the California ballot question comes in the wake of complaints by immigrant parents and some bilingual educators that students are languishing in bilingual classes without learning enough English.

Throughout the country, the California initiative has sparked a renewed debate about the relative effectiveness of the many different approaches to educating the growing population of LEP students. And it is also provoking some soul-searching among bilingual advocates who are arguing for the reform of bilingual education rather than its elimination.

After three decades, research on bilingual education is extensive, with hundreds of studies available. Yet much of it has been called into question by conflicting interpretations or has even been dismissed as methodologically unsound. In a 1996 review of the literature, for example, Boston University's Christine Rossell found only 25 percent of 300 program evaluations to be methodologically acceptable. The others often failed to use control groups or did not include a statistical control for socioeconomic or other differences.

Most research findings so far have failed to demonstrate the superiority of transitional bilingual programs, the most common type, in which students are taught in their native language while learning English. A few recent studies, however, have turned up some provocative new evidence of benefits for students who get a strong foundation in more than one language. "Late-exit" transitional bilingual programs and two-way programs that are intended to develop literacy in both the native language and English appear to help LEP students perform better throughout high school.

The Great Divide

In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lau v. Nichols that schools must take "affirmative steps" to help students who do not speak English. The Court did not specify the type of program required, however. Today, the different approaches to teaching minority-language students comprise a dizzying list. Methods break down into different models, including those that incorporate the native language such as transitional bilingual education, as well as English-language programs, which include structured immersion and English as a Second Language.

Of the nearly 3 million LEP students nationwide, 74 percent are Spanish speakers, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Vietnamese is the next largest language group, at 3.9 percent. Arguments about how best to teach LEP students usually focus on how soon they should be taught in English-only classrooms. The arguments are often motivated by political agendas, with strong views on both sides.

Part of the political debate stems from disparate goals. Many supporters of bilingual education view English learners as an opportunity to create truly bilingual and biliterate graduates. Opponents argue that tax dollars should not be spent on maintaining a child's native language and culture. The goal, from this perspective, is to help students learn English as quickly as possible and move into mainstream classrooms.

At the same time, both sides want to be sure students keep up with their peers in academic coursework. Bilingual supporters say this is best accomplished by teaching in the native language and gradually introducing more English as students gain literacy in their first language. Critics say this transitional approach isolates students from their peers for too long and delays the acquisition of English.

But in schools whose students speak many different languages, models that include instruction in the native language-particularly the two-way model -are not always practical. Classrooms with students from a variety of backgrounds often rely on English as a Second Language programs, which offer intensive English instruction from a specially trained teacher for part of the day.

Shortcomings of Bilingual Education

Studies comparing different models have failed to demonstrate the superiority of transitional bilingual programs, despite widespread federal support and implementation of this approach. One of the most comprehensive studies in the field is a 1991 federally financed project that followed more than 2,000 elementary children over four years. It looked at three programs: structured English immersion (special instruction in English only), early-exit transitional bilingual education (students mainstreamed into English-only classrooms by the end of first or second grade), and late-exit transitional bilingual education (students not mainstreamed until the end of sixth grade).

This evaluation, known as the Ramirez study after its principal author, has been used as both support for transitional bilingual education and ammunition against it. Students in all three programs learned English and made progress. Therefore, the study concluded, providing substantial instruction in a student's primary language does not delay acquisition of English. Yet it did not demonstrate that this approach boosted achievement or was superior to the immersion program.

Studies have also shown that many students stay in bilingual classrooms longer than the three years usually prescribed by the transitional bilingual model, and that when they are mainstreamed into regular classrooms they often lag behind their English-speaking peers.

Even the staunchest bilingual proponents readily admit that the current system of transitional bilingual education is failing many students. "A lot of bilingual programs aren't as good as they ought to be," says Catherine Snow, a researcher and professor at Harvard University's Graduate School of Education. "It's not surprising that parents of kids in those programs end up being dissatisfied." Snow chaired a National Research Council committee that announced in March that "initial reading instruction for children who do not speak English is best carried out in the child's home language."

A Case for the Long View

Recent research, however, suggests that a long-term view may be necessary in evaluating the effectiveness of language programs. In several studies-including the Ramirez study and studies by Virginia P. Collier and Wayne P. Thomas of George Mason University-children schooled in English-language programs made faster gains in English than comparable children in bilingual programs. But around the third or fourth year, the children who were taught at least partially in their native language began to catch up in English. While these students began to reduce the gap between their achievement and that of their native English-speaking peers, students who received English-only instruction failed to sustain their academic progress in late elementary and secondary school. Collier and Thomas looked at scores from nationally normed tests in all subjects, not just English, to judge the effectiveness of six different bilingual models.

Collier blames short-term studies for producing inconclusive research results on bilingual education programs. "In our current research," she says, "we have found data patterns similar to those often reported in other short-term studies focused on Grades K-3-little difference between programs." Significant differences show up only after students continue their schooling in mainstream courses, says Collier, whose ongoing research follows students through 11th grade. The preliminary findings show that only students who receive both English and native-language instruction through grade 5 or 6 are continuing to do well through high school.

In fact, the question of how long it takes students to become proficient in a new language is at the heart of the bilingual education controversy. Collier's research suggests that it takes students who receive English-only instruction longer (7 to 10 years) to reach average achievement, compared to students provided with strong native-language support (4 to 7 years).

But some critics say the Collier and Thomas study has not been subjected to peer review. "We only have their stated findings," says Rosalie Pedalino Porter, director of the READ Institute in Amherst, MA, an organization advocating English-language programs for LEP students. "I just cannot believe any child sitting in an American classroom can need 10 years to learn English." Collier and Thomas recently posted a 96-page research summary on the World Wide Web for review by other researchers and practitioners.

How Long Does It Take?

There appears to be no one answer to the question of how long it takes for a non-English speaker to become fluent enough to keep up in the classroom. What often gets lost in the discussion is the highly variable nature of language acquisition, says Snow. Students of normal intelligence can take vastly different amounts of time to master English. Socioeconomic background also plays a role.

Another important variable is age. "What you need to do for 13-year-olds and 5-year-olds is quite different," Snow says. Considerable research supports the theory that students who learn the "mechanics of literacy" in their native language can translate that knowledge into learning another language more easily. Therefore, says Snow, "the group that's really highly at risk are the students who arrive at school not knowing how to read. They're the ones that we really need to worry about."

The widespread myth that younger children learn languages more easily than older ones confuses the issue further. In fact, research shows that older students who are literate in their native language are faster second-language learners.

Mary Cazabon, director of bilingual programs in the Cambridge, MA, public schools, sees this in her district. "If students come in at the high school level literate and fully on grade level in their native language, they make a smooth transition into English and don't need 7 to 9 years," she says. "The younger children need to develop bilingually in order to maximize their learning potential," she believes.

In Cambridge, most Spanish-speaking students are taught in two-way bilingual programs with native English speakers. Research shows strong academic gains for both native-English and LEP students in two-way programs. Yet Cazabon recognizes that such a model is impractical for all languages and all ages. "You can't say that there is one exact model that is going to work for every child," she says.

Evaluation of Bilingual Classrooms

Some research, in fact, concludes that the specific models and languages of instruction may be less important than the quality of teaching that language-minority students receive. Researchers note the lack of interactive instruction in many programs for LEP students. When students have little opportunity to speak in class, they don't learn as quickly. There is also a concern about the lack of books available to students in bilingual programs.

"Many concerned educators realize that in order to improve the education of bilingual students, we need to go beyond the debate on language choice and support for particular models.... Issues of pedagogy need to be addressed," writes Boston University professor Maria Estela Brisk in her 1998 book, Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling.

Even in schools using the same model, there can be drastic differences in instructional approaches. In the Ramirez report, for example, students who attended one of the late-exit schools performed significantly better than students at the other late-exit schools. The researchers noted that the higher scoring students attended a kindergarten that emphasized critical-thinking skills in the native language. Another study noted dramatic differences in instructional practices between the lower and upper grades of the models compared, resulting in more differences between grade levels than between models.

"The focus needs to switch from languages to schools," concludes Brisk. "Schools, not languages, educate students."

For Further Information

D. August and K. Hakuta. Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.

M. E. Brisk. Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.

V. P. Collier and W. P. Thomas. Language Minority Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness: Research Summary of Ongoing Study. George Mason University, 1998; http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ ncbepubs/resource/effectiveness.

National Research Council. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, 1998; Available from National Academy Press, 202-334-3313; http://www. nap.edu.

R. P. Porter. Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1996.

J. Ramirez et al. Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language Minority Children (Vols. 1 and 2 prepared for the U.S. Department of Education). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International, 1991.

C. H. Rossell and K. Baker. "The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education." Research in the Teaching of English 30, no. 1 (February 1996): 7-74.

Laurel Shaper Walters is an education writer living in St. Louis, MO.