Bilingual education: approaches, benefits, and implementation strategies

Constitutional Law

Bilingual Education

The number of English language learning (ELL) students in the United States has increased dramatically over the last decade. According to a 1991 national study, there are over 2,300,000 students in grades K. through 12 who are classified as English language learners. This number has grown by over 1,000,000 since 1984. 73% f these students are Spanish-speakers, followed by Vietnamese-speakers at 3.9%. Because the overwhelming proportions of ELL students are Spanish speakers, the issue of bilingual education is largely a Latino one. No other language group makes up more than 4% of limited English proficient students. What complicates the issue of education for language minority students is their low socioeconomic status. 80% of ELL students are poor, and most attend schools where the majority of students also live in poverty and are English language learners. There is some difference in the level of poverty among language groups. Latinos are disproportionately represented among the poverty levels. 57% of Spanish-speaking families earn less than $20,000 compared to only 35% of families who speak Asian/Pacific Island languages. Poverty has many repercussions for educational achievement. Parents' educational attainment mirror income levels, and parents' educational achievement is highly linked to that of their children's (Baker and Hakuta, n.d.).

The instructional model with which Latino ELL students should be taught has become a very hot topic of debate in this country. On one side of the argument are those who support the idea that students who do not speak English should be taught in bilingual education programs. These programs consist of children being taught standard school subjects in both English and Spanish. The advantages of educating in this manner include: for those students who only speak Spanish this allows them not to fall behind in their subjects during the time that it takes for them to learn English and it also allows for those students who are learning English to not loose the proficiency that they have in their native language (Delgado, Perea and Stefancic, 2008). The disadvantages of this model are that far too few students meet the goal of transitioning out of the programs. Students who are in bilingual education programs have been shown to consistently score lower on standard achievement tests. Many of these students remain socially isolated and frequently drop out. Many more graduate without ever learning fundamental English skills. This deprives them of opportunity in an English-speaking country (What is bilingual education, n.d.).

On the other side of the debate are those that believe that these students should be taught with an instructional model that consists of being taught everything in English. This is usually done in structured English Immersion programs that are designed to last not more than a year. After that the students are mainstreamed into English-language classrooms (Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K-12, 2006). The advantage to this type of instructional model is that all of the children are learning English.

While the population of language minority children in the nation makes up a substantial part of the student population their educational civil rights have come under increasing scrutiny and attack over the past couple of decades. All students in this country have the right to be provided access to content area knowledge. Bilingual education has been an important technique used over the years in order to provide this right to English language learners. The utilization of this educational technique has been increasingly criticized and eroded over the past ten years (Baker and Hakuta, n.d.).

Bilingual education has a heritage of the Great Society programs that were developed during the 1960's. During that time Congress passed the 1968 Bilingual Education Act, or Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Act. Title VII provided a financial incentive for school districts to implement bilingual education. While the Act was perceived by many as largely symbolic because of its low level of funding, it did serve to emphasize the primacy of native language instruction especially in the 1974 reauthorization. It managed to give a voice and access to a largely ignored community of students. It is important to note that by advocating the use of bilingual education, Title VII defined students' educational civil rights as the right to learn content matter as well as the right to learn English. By funding only bilingual education programs, Title VII defined native language instruction as the preferred technique for limited English proficient students. By enlightening the importance of bilingualism to national security and economic competitiveness, Title VII is the closest that the United States has ever come to defining a national language policy (Baker and Hakuta, n.d.).

Critics of bilingual education have made strides into Title VII's mandate for native language instruction. The 1984 reauthorization opened the gates by allowing up to 4% of total funds to be used for programs that did not use the native language. In 1985, Secretary of Education William Bennett attacked the inflexibility imposed on local control by this cap. In the 1988 reauthorization, the cap on English-only programs was increased to 25%. Congress further loosened the 25% cap on funding for English only Title VII programs through a Special Rules provision, and almost any program serving L.E.P. students is eligible for funding whether or not it offers native language instruction (Baker and Hakuta, n.d.).

The courts have been the other major force in defining the educational rights of language minority students. In contrast to federal legislation, the courts have not gone as far as to favor one type of educational technique over another. They have left that task up to the individual school districts and the states. In Lau v. Nichols (1974) the Supreme Court ruled that schools must provide limited English proficient students with some sort of positive steps in order to overcome language barriers. In this case the court referred to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based one the grounds of race, color, or national origin. Castaneda v. Pickard (1981), which was the second major court case that defined educational rights for language minority students, served to narrow the scope of what constitute affirmative steps. The judge ruled that an educational program for language minority children must follow three standards: it must be based on a sound educational theory, it must be implemented effectively and with adequate resources and personnel and it must be evaluated as effective in overcoming language handicaps. The legislation referred to by the Court in this case was the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974, which states that school districts must take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that hamper equal participation by its students in instructional programs. Even thought these cases did not mandate a specific educational technique supporters of native language instruction have used Castaneda v. Pickard to support bilingual education on the basis that it is a sound educational theory (Baker and Hakuta, n.d.).

There have been a number of court cases that have directly related to that of Latino education in this country. The first of these is that of Valeria G. v. Wilson (1998). In this case the plaintiffs who were limited English proficient (LEP) students, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against defendant state officials seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting the implementation of a voter-approved proposition against bilingual education programs in public schools alleging that the proposition was unconstitutional.

LEP students filed an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prohibit the implementation of the proposition asserting that the proposition violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) 20 U.S.C.S. § 1701 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d, and the Equal Protection Clause and Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The court held that the proposition did not violate the EEOA because the proposition constituted appropriate action under 20 U.S.C.S. § 1703(f). It also said that it did not violate the Supremacy Clause because the proposition did not interfere with the EEOA. The court also stated that it did not violate Title VII because it would not inevitably result in an adverse effect, exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination and it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the Equal Protection Clause is not violated by the mere retracting of legislation or policies that were not required by the Federal Constitution in the first place. In this case the court denied the LEP students motion for a preliminary injunction (Valeria G. v. Wilson, 1998).

A second case to be looked at is that of Otero v. Mesa County Valley School District (1980). In this case a group of Mexican-American children brought an action against the school district claiming discrimination in curriculum and in employment practices. The court vacated the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and remanded to make new findings on the matter of discriminatory hiring practices, and after the district court refused to reopen the case, the children sought review.

The court held that the district court's refusal to reopen the case and receive additional evidence after the remand from the court was not error. The court did not remand with directions to reopen the case and retry it. The only direction was that the district court was to make more detailed findings on the question of allegedly discriminatory hiring practices that adversely affected the educational opportunities afforded the Mexican-American pupils in a claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d et seq. The district court considered various and different matters, and also made comprehensive findings on the school district's hiring practices. The district court concluded that the school district had not engaged in any discriminatory employment practices which adversely affected the quality of educational opportunities afforded the Mexican-American children. The court upheld the judgment of the district court, saying that the school district had not engaged in any discriminatory employment practices which had unfavorably affected the quality of educational opportunities given the Mexican-American children. The Court held that the district court's findings were not erroneous (Otero v. Mesa County Valley School District, 1980).

Another case is that of Lau v. Nichols (1974). In this case The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held for respondent school system in petitioner students' action alleging that the school system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d. The students appealed.

The students, who attended schools within the school system, were of Chinese ancestry and did not speak English. Some of the students received supplemental classes in English, but over half of the students did not receive any instruction. The students initiated a class action against the school system alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The appellate court held that there was no constitutional violation or violation of § 601. The appellate court held that all students had different educational advantages and disadvantages (Lau v. Nichols, 1974).

On appeal, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the school system violated § 601. Section 601 prohibited discrimination based upon race, color, or national origin in any program receiving federal financial assistance. The school system denied the students the opportunity to obtain the education received by other students in the school system by not providing adequate English courses. The students received fewer educational benefits than the English-speaking majority within the school system. The Court reversed the decision and remanded for further proceedings because the school system violated § 601 by discriminating against the students while receiving federal financial assistance (Lau v. Nichols, 1974). The court set forth the idea that basic English skills are at the very core of what public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child could effectively participate in an educational program, they must already have acquired those basic skills would make a mockery of public education. They felt that those who did not understand English would be certain to find their educational experiences beyond understanding and in no way meaningful (Delgado, Perea and Stefancic, 2008).

The decision of the court in this case guaranteed children the opportunity to have a meaningful education regardless of their language background. If a student did not understand English instruction, they were thought to be deprived of a meaningful education. The case also said that language-minority students must be ensured access to the same curriculum that is provided to their English-speaking peers. This must be done by way of affirmative steps such as bilingual instruction, English as a second language (ESL) classes, or other approaches. It also stated that all school districts that had more than 20 ESL students from a single language background were required to submit periodic reports to the Office of Civil Rights specifying the types of programs that they were offering to children of language minorities (Bilingual Education, 2006).

The last case is that of Serna v. Portales (1974). In this case the Appellant public schools challenged the decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico that established a plan to remedy discrimination against Spanish-speaking students in a class action brought by the parents of Hispanic students.

A class of parents of Hispanic students brought an action against the local public schools alleging discrimination in education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d, and U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The district court found that there was evidence that Hispanic students did not receive an adequate education because efforts were not made to incorporate them into the schools by providing bilingual education and cultural awareness. The district court ordered the public schools to create a plan in which to remedy the situation. The parents objected to parts of the public schools' plan so the district court incorporated the parents' concerns into its decision. The public schools appealed, and the court affirmed. The court held that the parents were properly representative of a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and they also had a personal stake in the action. The court held that the district court's action was proper given the longstanding tradition of discrimination by the public schools and the creation of a mere token plan as a remedy. The court affirmed the district court's decision (Serna v. Portales, 1974).

In this case the court held that the 10th Circuit Court Appeals had found that Spanish students' achievement levels were well below those of their Anglo counterparts. They also ordered Portales Municipal Schools to implement a bilingual/bicultural curriculum to accommodate non-English speaking students. Because of this the Texas Education Agency Bilingual/ESL Unit revised its procedures for assessing achievement in August of 2004 in order to hire bilingual school personnel (Bilingual Education, 2006).

Also in this case the Supreme Court found that the State of California required English to be the basic language of instruction in their public schools. Before a student could received a high school diploma they must meet the standards of proficiency in English. A student who did not understand the English language and was not provided a bilingual education was thought to be precluded from a meaningful education (Delgado, Perea and Stefancic, 2008).

The fundamental question in all of these cases is do schoolchildren and their parents have a right to public education in Spanish for all or part of the school day? How does a school take a group immigrant youth who cannot speak, much less read or write English and educate them so that the vast majority is able to pass demanding standardized examinations in content areas such as math, science, history and English? How does such a school achieve a drop-out rate significantly lower than the local average for comparable students, a graduation rate significantly higher than the local average for comparable students, and an excellent attendance record and college acceptance rate? These are all very important questions that have been at the heart of the bilingual education debate for years (Garcia and Bartlett, 2007)?

Court cases over the years have both empowered and disempowered Latino's in their struggle for education in the United States. Legislation has also been enacted surrounding this issue. California passed Proposition 227 in 1998. This initiative significantly altered the way in which English Learner's in the state were taught. It required that these students be taught in English through a structured English Immersion program that would last for a year. After that the students would be mainstreamed into English-language classrooms (Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K-12, 2006).

California Proposition 227 states that:

all California students must be taught in English as quickly as possible that all non- English speaking students must be placed in a short-term English immersion program. Students generally are not to spend more than one year in the program all public education must be conducted in English and severely restricts the use of their native language for the instruction of English learners.

People against the proposition have pointed out that one year after the English-only program was implemented; only 7% of students who had participated in the program were considered fluent in the English language. The 2004 test results for CA public schools showed that the achievement gap was widening for English learners in CA not shrinking at the proponents had stated. In 2004, the test scores of English learners declined in a majority of the grade levels and subjects. Some feel that Proposition 227 does not provide solutions to the challenges of cultural integration of language minorities, but only makes things worse (Bilingual Education, 2006).

In regards to the case of Valeria G. v. Wilson (1998), a civil rights group filed an injunction claiming that the one-year immersion program did not overcome language barriers in order to provide students with equal access to the core curriculum. It was alleged that Proposition 227 failed to provide the necessary services to limited English proficient students through an adequate instructional theory. There did not seem to be an ample implementation program or system for evaluation. The injunction was denied with the stating that an immersion program was sufficient for teaching limited English proficient students under federal law based on the previous ruling in Castaneda v. Pickard (1981). In this case the ruling outlined a three-pronged test for programs that adequately meet the needs for language minority students. This set the standard for what constituted appropriate action on the part of school districts (Mora, 2002).

Another case that is seen as disempowering to the Latino people is that of Otero v. Mesa County Valley School District (1980). In this case the district court held that the plaintiffs had no right to a bilingual-bicultural educational program. The recent studies in field of language ideology the idea of how detrimental this decision was can be seen. Different studies have addressed the values that people assign to languages, language varieties, and language users. In the case of language ideology and identity of Latinos in the United States, research has emphasized the power of language ideologies in Latinos' language choices and how these are tied to acceptance or resistance of particular identities. Additionally, sociolinguistic ethnographies of educational settings have demonstrate that language ideologies play a major role in determining which languages are privileged and legitimated in interactions that take place between teachers and students (Pastor, 2008). This research has shown that student's that are educated in a bilingual-bicultural environment identify better with what they are being taught making their educational experience a more positive and successful one.

Cases that have been more empowering to the Latino educational cause include Serna v. Portales (1974) and Lau v. Nichols (1974). In the Lau v. Nichols case, the plaintiffs charged that where students were taught only in English, school officials had not taken significant action to provide a meaningful education. The Supreme Court unanimously found that by "failing to affirmatively overcome the English language deficiencies of national origin group children with limited English-speaking ability, school officials had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The court handed down this decision even though the school district had made an effort to remedy language difficulties by providing supplemental English instruction to about 1,000 of the 2,856 Chinese students who did not speak English. About 1,800 students however did not receive any special instruction, which was a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The decision helped to establish a precedent, though it did not provide a specific remedy to assist students with limited English proficiency (Emerging Politics of Hispanic Education: From Politics to the Courts and Back Again, n.d.).

The decision regarding Title VI in Lau was used in the case of Serna v. Portales Municipal School (1974). Hispanics in the New Mexico community felt that the 12

school district's English as a Second Language (ESL) remedy was an inadequate response to the educational needs of Hispanic students. Expert witnesses testified that when a child "goes to school where he finds no evidence of his language and culture and ethnic group represented [he/she] becomes withdrawn and nonparticipating. Using Lau as a precedent, the court held that the district's failure to offer a bilingual and bicultural educational program that provided Hispanic students with a meaningful education deprived them of their rights under Title VI. It is significant that the court once again decided against the school district even though the school district was making an effort to provide a limited ESL program (Emerging Politics of Hispanic Education: From Politics to the Courts and Back Again, n.d.).

The history of bilingualism in American is more complex than is commonly thought. The use of more than one language by a community has been part of the American social and political arenas for more than two centuries. The Continental Congress in 1774-89 regularly published documents in German and French along with English. In the classroom, an 1839 Ohio law allowed for instruction in German, English, or both according to what ever the parents of students wanted. At the turn of the century, six hundred thousand elementary students received all or part of their education in German which is thought to be more than receive Spanish-English instruction today (Leal and Hess, 2000).

Since the Colonial era Bilingual Education has been a highly debated issue. The United States has been through many periods of high and low tolerance in regards to Bilingual Education programs. Several events in the history of this country have been key factors in determining the policies and legislation that surrounds Bilingual Education. It all started back with the first non-English speaking settlers of the United States. It has been seen in the repression of the Native American languages and cultures and in the new wave of immigrants in the early 20th century. It can be seen in the anti-immigrant sentiment brought on by both of the World Wars and in the brief progressive action that took place in the 1960s. And finally it has come to an age where post-September eleventh attitudes appear to be legislating Bilingual Education Policy (Bilingual Education, 2006).

There is evidence today that points to some progress being made. More Hispanics are going to college, most major universities in the Southwest offer some type of Hispanic Studies courses and more Hispanic scholars are writing about and documenting their life experiences. In California, more Hispanic students are graduating from high schools, more are taking the SAT and ACT tests, and more are becoming eligible for the California community college and state university system. These improvements are reserved, however, particularly when contrasted with the proportional growth of the Hispanic population over the last fifty years. Furthermore, attacks continue on the educational opportunities and the quality of education offered to Hispanic students. Hispanics are still considered to be the most unlikely racial/ethnic group to finish high school, attend college, and graduate from college. Since the 1960s to the present, it is safe to say that public schools have continued to consistently fall short of providing for the success of Hispanic students at every point in the educational channel. The current anti-civil rights, anti-Hispanic, and anti-immigrant beliefs manifested in California's Propositions 187, 209, and 227 continue to shape public policy that directly affects Hispanic communities' educational, economic, political, and social well-being. Although such legislation and policy initiatives seem to issue primarily from California, it is significant for all Hispanics in the United States because California appears to be setting a national public policy standard as it stimulates a new politics of civil rights (Emerging Politics of Hispanic Education: From Politics to the Courts and Back Again, n.d.).

Bilingual education has become a politically troublesome issue, with both sides arguing that it affects Hispanic dropout rates. Conventional understanding argues that LEP status is a factor that increases the likelihood of dropping out. Evidence has suggested that the linkage between LEP status and increased dropout rates seems to be the strongest for Hispanic students. More recent studies have shown that the relationship between LEP status and dropouts is likely to be unauthenticated, and are more a function of socio-economic status, immigrant status, and gender. Many of these studies also find a positive relationship between bilingualism and school completion in which the students who speak two languages are less likely to drop out (Theobald, n.d.).

Opponents to bilingual education continue to cite the continuing high Hispanic dropout rates as evidence of bilingual education failure. It has been found though that this argument is weak since most Hispanic students do not need ELL programs. More importantly, since not all LEP students receive ELL instruction, part of the Hispanic dropout problem may be the lack of service, not failure of the program. There has been evidence that the high Hispanic dropout rates are at least in part a function of the failure to serve the need of LEP students (Theobald, n.d.).

Texas is an example of a system that serves its LEP students well. Their education code mandates that districts have certain programs and qualified teachers for these programs if they have sufficient numbers of LEP students. All the districts serve most, if not all, of their LEP students through bilingual or ESL instruction. Even though the Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols ruled that districts must address the needs of their LEP students, many other states do not have similar requirements regarding ESL or bilingual instruction for LEP students. States without requirements regarding the service of LEP students are thought to have greater numbers of LEP students who are not served by ELL programs. Some experts feel that if states are concerned with Hispanic dropout rates, then they should consider drafting and enforcing education codes that mandate ELL program service for LEP students (Theobald, n.d.).

There is also evidence of a relationship between program type and continuing high school education and graduation rates. Schools that only use ESL instruction are better at progressing Hispanics toward graduating on time. Differentiation in bilingual education types also cannot be assessed with these results. There is thought to be a significant difference in program enrollment time between LEP students on a bilingual to mainstream track compared to those on a bilingual to ESL to mainstream track, 3.6 and 6.9 years respectively. Enrollment time is essentially the same between students on a bilingual only track compared to students on an ESL only track, 3.6 and 3.8 years respectively. If time in ELL program affects academic success, then separating districts by the type of bilingual programs they use may offer greater clarity in results (Theobald, n.d.).

Adversaries of bilingual education argue that LEP students should spend as little time as possible in ELL programs. Proposition 227 in California and Proposition 203 in Arizona both mandate that LEP students spend no more than a year in structured immersion programs before being mainstreamed. The major difference between ESL and structured immersion programs is the amount of time LEP students spend in either program. In Texas, students that are enrolled in ESL only tracks spend on average more than three times as long in ESL compared to time spent in a structure immersion program. If one year is seen as not being enough, then districts utilizing structured immersion instruction will increase the number of LEP students in a district that are not being served by special language programs (Theobald, n.d.).

Bilingual education is a classic example of an experiment that was begun with the best of intentions but somewhere along the way went terribly wrong. In order to make sense of this is important to look back to the mid-1960s, when the civil-rights movement for African-Americans was at its height and Latino activists began to protest the damaging circumstances that led to unacceptably high proportions of school dropouts among Spanish-speaking children. Latino leaders used the strategies of the civil-rights movement, calling for legislation to address the needs of Spanish-speaking children. In 1968 Congress approved a bill that aimed at removing the language barrier to an equal education. The Bilingual Education Act was an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, intended to help poor Mexican-American children learn English. The goal was not to keep any specific language alive but to just to try to make all children fully literate in English (Porter, 1998).

For the first time, the federal government had essentially dictated how non-English-speaking children should be educated. That action led to state laws and legal decisions in venues all the way up to the Supreme Court. There was a lot of money and effort put into a program that has since become the most controversial arena in public education. In very simple terms, bilingual education was a special effort to help immigrant children learn English so that they can do regular schoolwork with their English-speaking classmates and receive an equal educational opportunity. Some experts decided very early that children should be taught for a time in their native languages, so that they would continue to learn other subjects while learning English. It was expected that the transition would take a child three years (Porter, 1998).

From this idea grew an education industry that expanded far beyond its original mission to teach English and resulted in the extended segregation of non-English-speaking students. A lot of bilingual programs became more concerned with teaching in the native language and maintaining the ethnic culture of the family than with teaching children English within the three-year time period. Beginning in the 1970s several ideas were put forward to provide a rationale for the bilingual-teaching model. This model thought that Mexican-American children in the United States were so different from the rest of the children that they must be given bilingual and bicultural instruction in order to achieve academic success. Educators were convinced of the soundness of this idea and judges handed down court decisions on the basis of it (Porter, 1998).