Bilingual Education the United States

Bilingual Education

The United States of America is home to a large variety of cultures and languages. This is the result of immigration, and also of many generations of immigrants who have preserved the habits and languages of their home country. This has important implications for the world of language teaching. Children from cultures whose native language is not English, for example, tend to struggle in schools where the only medium of instruction is English. In this way a need arises to uplift these children and give them the same educational opportunities and quality of teaching as English-speaking American children. On the basis of this perceived need arose the paradigm of bilingual education. It is interesting to not that not all critics and educators see this as a positive development. Indeed, so many are against it that "anti-bilingual" education has become their official position. Below is a consideration of bilingual education, its history, the controversy associated with it, and some considerations for the future.

Bilingual Education: Background and History

Bilingual education, as mentioned above, was created in response to the needs of early immigrants. The first bilingual education law was adopted by the state of Ohio as early as 1839 (Rethinking Schools, 2002). This law focused on providing German-English teaching if parents particularly requested it for their children. In 1847, Louisiana followed with an identical law for French and English. In 1950, New Mexico authorized a law for Spanish and English. This trend grew throughout the United States towards the end of the 19th century, when similar laws were passed by about a dozen states. It is interesting to note that the popularity of this trend grew to the extent that some bilingual education was provided without waiting for state laws to pass. Indeed, some provided bilingual education in languages such as Norwegian, Italian, Polish, Czech, and Cherokee (Rethinking Schools, 2002).

The period at the end of the 18th century was a fruitful time for bilingual education. It is reported that 600,000 primary school students from both public and parochial schools were enrolled in programs that included at least some instruction in German; more than those receiving today's Spanish-English instruction. World War I was drove a change in the arena of bilingual instruction.

English-only instruction was viewed as necessary as a result of political upheaval. Politicians saw it as their duty to ensure the loyalty of German as well as other non-English speaking Americans by implementing English-only instruction laws. The aim was to repress any natively German disloyalty that might result from the war. Some states even banned studying foreign languages during the early grades in their attempt to "Americanize" all foreign cultures within the local borders. The result is that bilingual education was mostly eradicated by the middle of the 1920's (Rethinking Schools, 2002).

Problems related to this paradigm however soon began to reveal themselves. LEP students for example began to fall behind as a result of their lack of language skills in English-only classrooms. These students also began to increasingly drop out from schools, resulting in a lack of work skills and a rising unemployment level in the country.

An attempt to remedy this state of affairs was finally implemented by means of the Bilingual Education at of 1968. Once again, this was a period of growing immigration and increasing civil rights movements. The rights of the individual once again took precedence over collective and outdated political issues. Federal funding encouraged school districts towards a more inclusive native-language instruction paradigm. Bilingual education laws were once again enacted according to the mainly important needs of local communities. The use of other languages in the classroom was once again allowed.

Concomitantly with the understanding that English-only instruction had its shortcomings, the new focus on civil rights provided an incentive to also focus on the rights of non-native learners. These rights entailed the same quality of education. For LEP students, English-only education could not provide the same quality as for native speakers.

After the Supreme Court's decision in favor of overcoming language barriers in the classroom to provide equal opportunity education to all students, Congress approved the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974. While the same principle is supported both by this act and the Bilingual Education Act, no federal mandate was implemented for teaching LEP students, nor were specific methods required (Rethinking Schools, 2002). This provides school with a fair degree of freedom regarding the specific teaching methods that work best in each situation.

There is however a three-step test that the federal Office for Civil Rights can use to standardize the perceived quality of education programs to LEP students. The first step is to ensure the inclusion of research-based programs reviewed by experts in the field to verify their theoretical soundness. The second requirement is adequate resources in terms of staff, training and materials, and thirdly standards and procedures need to be in place to evaluate the program. This evaluation must then be assessed and modified on a continuous basis to ensure results (Rethinking Schools, 2002).

Currently, these measures to ensure targeted bilingual education are opposed by political actions such as California's Unz initiative and the anti-bilingual movement. Some feel that these are solely politically inspired and do not have the interests of learners, nor civil rights at heart. The American ideal is equal opportunities and rights for all. According to the proponents of bilingual education, anti-bilingual measurements do not support equal rights. Indeed, the history of English-only education has proved its ineffectiveness for providing equal opportunities for all. Despite this, the debate regarding the benefits of bilingual education continues to fire emotions throughout the world of American education. Examining the position of each side may shed some light on the issue.

Bilingual Education: Proponents

Stephen Krashen (2007) is one of the proponents of bilingual education. In the ERIC Digest, he suggests a variety of ways in which bilingual education can be beneficial for learners. Krashen's primary point of departure is the fact that young children receiving education in their primary language are provided with both knowledge and literacy in both English and the subject area of instruction. Primary language education provides these children with a basis from which to understand the English that they hear and read. In this way, first-language knowledge is transferred to the second language.

For children learning to read, Krashen translates this to the process of acquiring reading skills for the first time: children who learn to read for the first time do so more easily in their primary language. As soon as the skill is acquired, it becomes easier to also read in the second language, and hence to become increasingly proficient in the second language. After the initial skills are learned, Krashen suggests that intermediate students are ready to receive high quality ESL classes, and also subject matter teaching in English to a moderate degree.

Krashen identifies a quality bilingual program as including the following elements: Both ESL and first-language instruction, as well as sheltered subject matter teaching. Krashen emphasizes the need to provide children at the initial stages of their education with core instruction in their first language, and that this should be combined with ESL instruction. This provides them with a sound basis on which to build further education and to eventually successfully enter a system of education in either language. The proficiency that they build during these first years is then used to build targeted education in the second language to help children learn firstly in a sheltered context, while later moving to mainstream classes in the secondary. Krashen asserts that beginning schooling at the initial level with core education in the primary language while providing supplementary ESL education provides a brings between this level and eventual language competence to a sufficient degree so that children will be able to both understand and study in English. Krashen contrasts this with English-language immersion, by which children are forced as it were to "sink or swim." This is notoriously unsuccessful, as its main effect is adding to children's stress levels while providing little else.

Krashen also addresses the issue of opposition to bilingual education. The opposition often cite examples of second-language English speakers who have succeeded without bilingual education. Krashen however refutes this by contrasting the environment and opportunities open to the successful individuals with the general conditions in which the average LEP chid finds him- or herself. LEP children for example generally have little access to the English language beyond the school environment. They grow up in neighbourhoods where Spanish is the dominant language. In these environments they also have limited access to books. Second language speakers who claim to have success without bilingual education, in fact had advantages that are not generally within the grasp of LEP persons.

Krashen goes on to cite evidence that apply to languages other than Spanish in bilingual education. In non-Roman languages such as Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Turkish, evidence appears to suggest the success of bilingual programs in terms of transference of skills from one language to the other. In terms of efficacy, Krashen addresses the position that bilingual education is not as effective as suggested by its proponents.

The evidence presented by this position is however not sufficiently convincing to make a substantial case for immersion programs as being superior to bilingual curricula.

Krashen admits that there are still a number of problems associated with bilingual education that need to be addressed. The largest of these is the accessibility of books in either language to children taking part in bilingual programs. Books are essential in the learning process. In bilingual programs, particularly, it is not only a source of subject knowledge, but also of comprehensible input that is a valuable basis for transference as well as first-language development. The problem is that these learners have little access to books, either at home or at school.

James Crawford (1998) also addresses the bilingual education issue from both sides. According to the author, general opposition points to bilingual education include questions regarding such education as having an isolating rather than integrating effect, the superiority of immersion programs, and the excessive "political correctness" label that could be placed upon bilingual education. Another significant opposition point, and perhaps the core of the controversy, relates to English as forming the national identity. According to opponents, bilingual education is likely to divide Americans among ethnic lines rather than encourage all citizens to integrate into the "American" way of life.

Like Krashen, Crawford holds that oppositions such as these, whether made in good faith or from a racial or politically biased point-of-view, are indicative of a basic ignorance regarding bilingual education and its concomitant issues such as second language acquisition and non-English speaking groups in the United States, both in the present and in the past.

Also like Krashen, Crawford refutes many of the popular myths surrounding bilingualism and education by means of statistical findings and documented research. One of the most significant in this regard is bilingualism. During the 1960's, the popular notion that bilingualism handicap children's cognitive growth, proved unfounded. Since this decade, it has also been proved that the contrary is true: multilingualism does not have a confusing effect; in fact, it tends more towards providing the speaker with cognitive advantages. Concomitantly, the immersion method of language teaching has been proved incorrect by practical experience. As mentioned above, as disproportionate amount of non-native speakers failed or dropped out from schools where they were immersed in the language without any help to overcome the barriers created in this way. According to the immersion theory, the quantity of English input is the deciding factor in terms of second language learning success. However, according to the author, research proves that it is rather the quality than quantity of input, with quality referring to comprehensible second language input, that is the deciding factor in such success.

Crawford further substantiate all the points made by Krashen's document, concluding with the linguistic consensus among experts in the field is that, while native-language teaching in no way serves as a detriment to second-language acquisition, skills that are well developed in the native language also tend to transfer to other, newly acquired languages. Furthermore the value of bilingualism cannot be denied in terms of either individuals or society as a whole.

Bilingual Education: Opponents

It is interesting that opponents to bilingual education appear to be represented by politicians rather than linguists. The problem is that persons who are not trained in the language arts, nor in the way in which language is acquired, are furnished with the power of legislation to return to the period before the 1960s, when bilingualism was outlawed. Another problem is that campaigns to outlaw bilingual education are couched in political jargon and emotionally charged assertions at a time when Americans are in an emotional state regarding other issues such as terrorism and the war in Iraq. Politicians are using this to manipulate citizens according to their own agendas, rather than because it would be best for education.

Currently, the United States is going through a difficult political period. Emotions are running high not only in terms of the war on terrorism, but also in terms of the concomitant issue of culture and language. Whereas German was the maligned language and culture during the World Wars, currently Arabs are at the receiving end of racial slurs and attacks. Because of this, Americans are also subject to a particularly patriotic feeling, which translates itself to the language issue. Hence the drive to phase out bilingual education is politically rather than linguistically motivated. Basically the same thing that happened during the World Wars and beyond is repeating itself. The fact that immersion programs failed without any dispute is ignored in the urge towards Americanization.

This is shown in the Internationalist report of 2003. The report describes the efforts by various states to reinstate immersion to replace bilingual programs. Massachusetts for example passed Question 2 by 70%, calling for replacing the existing bilingual program with an English immersion program. Chillingly, non-compliant teachers are threatened by being sued, or even jailed. ESL instructors are also in danger of this, and even teachers unions are under attack from racist groups fueled by the 9/11 attacks. The report draws a parallel between the many immigrant detentions as a result of mindless, fearful hysteria rather than any legitimate grounds.

The main drive behind this political initiative is Ron Unz, a millionaire from Silicon Valley. Unfortunately it appears that in the United States, freedom of speech and equality for all is driven by money rather than the ideals themselves. Hence Unz has funded anti-bilingual campaigns in several states. According to the report, Unz has very little interest in the education of children, but is rather driven by a xenophobic paradigm for the eradication of all "foreign" cultures, of which language is of course representative.

Proposition 227 in California and Proposition 203 in Arizona were both funded by Unz, also the author of numerous articles and other publications focused on the eradication of other languages and cultures under the premise that they are "contaminating" everything that the American ideal stands for. The Internationalist his work, "California and the End of White America" in Commentary (November 1999), in this regard.

After 9/11, Unz and other individuals of the same persuasion were quick to demonize bilingualism in education and its proponents as "terrorists." At the time of the Internationalist report, Unz was focusing his attention on New York in his effort in pushing for national legislation to ban bilingual education.

The problem, from the bilingual proponent's point-of-view, is two-fold. Firstly, as mentioned above, Unz is not a linguist, nor does he particularly care for the educational efforts of young children in the country. His motive is purely political. Secondly, Unz's theories and assertions appeal to many politicians in the White House and in Congress. Hence he has a large amount of political backing for his efforts, whereas bilingual education proponents hardly have a foot to stand on in the mass-hysteria following 9/11.

An example of this power is the "No Child Left Behind" Act, established by George Bush in 2001. this act eliminates the 1968 Title VII, under which bilingual education is required for the benefit of minority immigrant groups. The vast support not only from politicians, but also from the public, for legislation against bilingualism is perhaps a sad testament to the American tendency to follow without question its leaders. This tendency is the result of the unfortunate political situation after 9/11. As a result, as is the reality of every war, the children at the receiving end of education suffer the most.

Concomitant with the extreme political situation is the rapid rise in immigration from the 1980s to date. The Internationalist (2003) cite numbers such as 11.2% of the total U.S. population being foreign-born as revealed by the 2000 census; a number that rose from 4.7 during 1980. It is emphasized that these numbers do not truly indicate reality, as children and undocumented foreign workers are not included in the census figures. According to the report, these figures are the highest since the 1920s. Another element is that these immigrants have formed fairly large homogeneous groups throughout the United States, whereas in the past the tendency was more towards individual immigrants among the majority of English-speaking American community. Major areas of the country are for example occupied by Spanish-speaking immigrants, while some areas are predominantly occupied by Latino and Asian workers. It is little wonder therefore that hysterical and racist Americans see these groups as threatening to the national identity and security in the country. Sadly, it appears that history is repeating itself. The current negativity towards all immigration is reminiscent of extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and anti-immigrant legislation during the 1920's immigration boom.

In addition to security and culture, it is feared that bilingual education will usurp English as the dominant language in the United States. The Internationalist (2003) however refers to this as a "fantasy driven by racism," pointing out that English is not only the predominant language in the United States, but also in the world at large. Indeed, it is the language of commerce, science, and more or less any other field of study that can be conceived. Ironically, bilingual education focuses its very attention not on isolating children from English, nor on teaching them only the primary language. The focus is precisely on teaching them English in a way that will give them access to a wide variety of study fields in the future.

A further trend in education is that pseudo-scientific methods have been used in order to provide a sense of credibility other than politics to the anti-bilingual position. This is then used to persuade educators to adhere to the positions advocated by officials favoring the anti-bilingual position. Dr. Christine Rossell is cited as using this very method to lend credibility to her claims regarding minority children taught in English. The phrase "scientific research indicates," without any accompanying sources or professional names, is simply followed by whatever Rossell and others like her would like the public, educators and experts to believe. Instead, truly educated experts in the field, including Stephen Krashen, has more or less irrefutably disproved Rossell's and others' claims in this regard. It is interesting to note that Dr. Rossell served as co-chair on Unz's 2002 Massachusetts Initiative Campaign.