Bilingual Children: Language and Cognitive Development

Introduction: The Bilingual Education Debate

Much of the debate on bilingual education is wasteful, ironic, hypocritical, and regressive. It is wasteful because, instead of directing attention to sound educational practices, it has led to advocating specific "models" based solely on what language should be used for what purpose. It is ironic because most attacks on bilingual education arise from an unfounded apprehension that English will be abandoned in the United Kingdom, whereas the rest of the world fears the opposite: the lure of English and dominance of European traditions are seen by non-English-speaking countries as a danger to their own languages and cultures. It is hypocritical because most challengers of teaching in languages other than English simultaneously want to endorse foreign language requirements for high school graduation. Additionally, it is regressive and xenophobic, given that the rest of the world regards ability in at least two languages as a mark of good education.

The political struggle to defend bilingual education in schools has wasted much energy in the search for a "perfect" model. The recent history of bilingual education is replete with various models, all posing as panaceas. Overreliance on particular models often detracts from scrutiny of what really happens in schools. When proponents of bilingual education allow themselves to be drawn into battles over language choice, they too often lose sight of what should be their central goal: providing quality education to language minority students in ways that integrate them into both their own and the majority culture.

If educators could set aside their biases about language use, they would find sufficient evidence to guide them toward providing effective education in any language. They would recognize that the mission of schools is to educate students so that they have real choices when they graduate. Educating bilingual students must go beyond merely teaching them English or merely maintaining their native language. The professional world expects graduates to have not only high-level literacy in English and familiarity with other languages, but also critical thinking ability and the aptitude to engage with new situations and concepts. Bilingual students have not just the ability but also the right to be prepared to face the challenges of contemporary society.

Criticism of bilingual education is not entirely groundless (Bialystok, 2001). Some bilingual programs are unsuitable for delivering quality education even if they have produced a few successful students — much of that credit belonging to the heroic efforts of individual teachers (Brisk, 1990, 1994). Advocates must acknowledge that many bilingual programs are substandard. Rather than offering blanket approval to programs on the basis of whether they use the children's mother tongue, supporters of bilingual education should be selective, backing only those programs and schools that adhere to the principles of high-quality education for bilingual students.

Bilingual education too frequently falls victim to political, financial, and social obstacles that feed on hostile attitudes toward bilingual programs, teachers, students, their families, languages, and traditions. Such attitudes shape a school culture that restricts good education for language minority students. Research on effective schools demonstrates that schools can stimulate academic achievement for students regardless of how external factors affect them. Thoughtful attention to language and culture can support English language development without sacrificing the native language or the capacity to function in a cross-cultural world.

Assessment of bilingual education programs requires moving beyond compensatory agendas. All learners, but particularly bilinguals, deserve quality programs that counter harmful stereotypes. The school characteristics in Table 1 (Source: Snow & Ferguson, 2007) illustrate the factors that either promote or limit quality bilingual education.

TABLE 1. School Characteristics (Source: Snow & Ferguson, 2007).

Promote Quality Bilingual Education

1. Administration, in cooperation with faculty and community, develops clear goals.
2. School creates a bilingual and bicultural environment.
3. Bilingual program is integrated with the whole school.
4. Bilingual students are known by all staff.
5. Administration provides leadership and supports the program.
6. School staff sets high expectations and supports bilingual students.
7. School hires quality personnel willing to work with bilingual students.
8. School enjoys a productive relationship with parents and communities.
9. School curricula make use of students' languages and cultures to promote learning.
10. Bilingual students participate in a comprehensive curriculum that incorporates current educational innovations.
11. Materials are of high quality, varied, and available in the students' language as well as English.
12. Assessment is fair and authentic, with the purpose of improving teaching and learning.
13. Instructional practices are consistent with goals of promoting language development, cultural adjustment, and academic achievement.

Limit Quality of Bilingual Education Programs

1. There are no clear goals, leaving interpretation open to ideological tendencies.
2. Personnel and students outside the bilingual program hold poor attitudes toward the program's languages and cultures; there is no explicit instruction on American culture.
3. Bilingual program is segregated from the rest of the school.
4. Only bilingual staff knows bilingual students.
5. Administration is unsupportive, ambivalent, or indifferent.
6. Staff believes ability to function is related to English language proficiency or ethnic background.
7. Students are taught by personnel with limited understanding or skills.
8. Parents are perceived as indifferent or uninterested; no effort is made to accommodate parents' language and culture.
9. Use of students' languages and cultures is limited and only within the bilingual program.
10. Bilingual program curriculum does not cover all the same areas as the general school curriculum; bilingual students do not benefit from special programs introduced for the whole school.
11. Materials in the students' language are limited and of poor quality.
12. Assessment consists mostly of standardized tests in English, with the main purpose being to place students into or remove them from the bilingual program.
13. Instructional practices are inconsistent, depending on individual teachers' beliefs and knowledge.

Many bilingual programs survive only because school districts must meet legislative and court requirements. They persist in segregation within uncooperative schools where the attitude toward the program is unenthusiastic and the potential of students is underestimated. Students reject their identity in schools that do not recognize their culture, yet cannot fully adopt a new one (Commins, 2009). Such students repeatedly become frustrated and disruptive (Brisk, 1991; McCollum, 1993). As Heath (2003) observed, "One thinks what the achievements of such students would be if their energies were openly encouraged by an environment in which they no longer had to trade traditions for school learning." Overworked and undervalued teachers burn out, leading to turnover and instability in programs.

Schools without clear goals depend on individual educators for program quality and are more susceptible to ideological pressure. Without unambiguous goals for bilingual education, confusion and dissatisfaction among staff and community are likely outcomes. Studies in California and the Midwest underscore the importance of clear goals (Hakuta, 2009). When English-speaking and bilingual staff do not share common goals, a significant communication gap develops among teachers, affecting instruction, students, and overall program coherence (Watahomigie & McCarty, 2004).

Although many teachers are well qualified, increasing burdens on personnel have led to the appointment of poorly qualified teachers or the redeployment of mainstream teachers with no training in bilingual education. Districts experience greater satisfaction and stability when they develop bilingual programs gradually and maintain strict quality control in hiring. Districts that expand quickly and haphazardly without careful recruitment experience excessive staff turnover, often losing their best teachers, who burn out while supporting less-prepared colleagues (Hakuta, 2009). Because such programs are frequently perceived as remedial, the curriculum is thin, materials are lacking, and assessment is narrowly limited to English language growth.

Such bilingual education programs should not be supported. The kind of bilingual education characterized in this paper should be supported not merely because it benefits bilingual students, but also because its implementation can improve schools as a whole.