Bilingual Education in America: History, Debate, and Future

Introduction

The United States is home to a wide variety of cultures and languages, a reality shaped by immigration and by generations of immigrants who have preserved the habits and languages of their countries of origin. This diversity has important implications for language teaching. Children whose native language is not English tend to struggle in schools where the only medium of instruction is English. In this way, a need arises to support these children and give them the same educational opportunities and quality of teaching as their English-speaking peers. Out of this perceived need arose the paradigm of bilingual education. Not all critics and educators view this as a positive development; indeed, so many are opposed that "anti-bilingual" education has become an official position for some. The following is a consideration of bilingual education, its history, the controversy associated with it, and some thoughts for the future.

Background and History of Bilingual Education

Bilingual education 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 instruction when parents specifically requested it for their children. In 1847, Louisiana followed with an identical law for French and English. In 1850, New Mexico authorized a similar law for Spanish and English. This trend grew throughout the United States toward the end of the 19th century, when comparable laws were passed by about a dozen states. Notably, the popularity of bilingual education grew to the point that some districts provided it without waiting for state laws to be enacted. Instruction was offered in languages such as Norwegian, Italian, Polish, Czech, and Cherokee (Rethinking Schools, 2002).

The period at the end of the 19th century was a particularly productive 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 the number of students receiving Spanish-English instruction today. World War I, however, drove a significant change in the arena of bilingual instruction.

English-only instruction came to be seen as necessary in response to wartime political upheaval. Politicians felt it was their duty to ensure the loyalty of German and other non-English-speaking Americans by implementing English-only instruction laws. The aim was to suppress any perceived disloyalty that might be associated with foreign languages. Some states even banned the study of foreign languages in the early grades in an effort to "Americanize" all foreign cultures within their borders. The result was that bilingual education was largely eradicated by the mid-1920s (Rethinking Schools, 2002).

Problems related to English-only instruction soon began to emerge. Limited English proficient (LEP) students began to fall behind as a result of language barriers in English-only classrooms. These students also increasingly dropped out of school, leading to a lack of work skills and rising unemployment.

An attempt to remedy this situation was finally implemented through the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. Once again, this was a period of growing immigration and expanding civil rights movements. The rights of the individual took precedence over collective and politically outdated concerns. Federal funding encouraged school districts toward a more inclusive native-language instruction model. Bilingual education laws were re-enacted in response to the pressing needs of local communities, and the use of languages other than English in the classroom was once again permitted.

Alongside the recognition that English-only instruction had its shortcomings, the renewed focus on civil rights provided an incentive to consider the rights of non-native learners as well. These rights included access to the same quality of education available to English-speaking students. For LEP students, English-only education could not provide equivalent quality.

After the Supreme Court's decision in favor of overcoming language barriers to provide equal educational opportunity for all students, Congress approved the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974. While both this act and the Bilingual Education Act share the same underlying principle, no federal mandate specified particular methods for teaching LEP students (Rethinking Schools, 2002). This gave schools a fair degree of freedom in choosing the specific teaching approaches that work best in each local context.

There is, however, a three-step test that the federal Office for Civil Rights may use to assess the quality of education programs for LEP students. The first step is to ensure that programs are research-based and reviewed by experts in the field to verify their theoretical soundness. The second requirement is adequate resources in terms of staff, training, and materials. Third, standards and procedures must be in place to evaluate the program, with ongoing assessment and modification to ensure continued results (Rethinking Schools, 2002).

Currently, these measures to support targeted bilingual education are opposed by political initiatives such as California's Unz initiative and the broader anti-bilingual movement. Some argue that these initiatives are purely politically motivated and do not serve the interests of learners or civil rights. The American ideal is equal opportunity and rights for all. According to proponents of bilingual education, anti-bilingual measures undermine that ideal. The history of English-only education has demonstrated its ineffectiveness at providing equal opportunity. Despite this, the debate over the benefits of bilingual education continues to generate strong emotions throughout American education.

Proponents of Bilingual Education

Stephen Krashen (2007) is one of the leading proponents of bilingual education. In the ERIC Digest, he outlines several ways in which bilingual education benefits learners. Krashen's primary argument is that young children who receive education in their primary language gain knowledge and literacy in both their native language and English, as well as in the subject area being taught. Primary-language education gives these children a foundation from which to understand the English they hear and read. In this way, knowledge acquired in the first language transfers to the second language.

For children learning to read, Krashen explains that children who learn to read for the first time do so more easily in their primary language. Once the skill is acquired, it becomes easier to read in the second language as well, and to become increasingly proficient in it. After initial skills are established, Krashen suggests that intermediate students are ready for high-quality ESL classes and moderate subject matter instruction in English.

Krashen identifies a quality bilingual program as one that includes ESL instruction, first-language instruction, and sheltered subject matter teaching. He emphasizes the importance of providing children in the early stages of their education with core instruction in their first language, combined with ESL instruction. This gives them a sound foundation on which to build further education and to successfully enter a system of instruction in either language. The proficiency built during these early years is then used to develop targeted education in the second language, beginning in a sheltered context before moving to mainstream classes. Krashen contrasts this with English-language immersion, in which children are effectively forced to "sink or swim." This approach is well-documented as unsuccessful, primarily adding to children's stress while providing little educational benefit.

Krashen also addresses opposition to bilingual education. Opponents often cite examples of non-native English speakers who succeeded without bilingual education. Krashen refutes this by contrasting the environments and opportunities available to those successful individuals with the general conditions faced by the average LEP child. LEP children typically have little access to English beyond the school environment. They grow up in neighborhoods where Spanish is the dominant language and where access to books is limited. Non-native speakers who claim success without bilingual education generally had advantages not available to most LEP students.

Krashen also cites evidence from languages beyond Spanish in bilingual education. In non-Roman script languages such as Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Turkish, evidence suggests the success of bilingual programs in terms of skills transferring from one language to another. Regarding efficacy, Krashen notes that the evidence presented by immersion advocates is not sufficiently convincing to make a substantial case for immersion programs as superior to bilingual curricula.

Krashen acknowledges that some problems associated with bilingual education remain. The most significant is the limited access to books in either language for children in bilingual programs. Books are essential in the learning process, and in bilingual programs specifically, they serve not only as sources of subject knowledge but also as sources of comprehensible input that supports language transfer and first-language development. Many of these learners have little access to books either at home or at school.

James Crawford (1998) also addresses the bilingual education debate from multiple angles. He notes that common opposition arguments include claims that bilingual education isolates rather than integrates students, that immersion programs are superior, and that bilingual education is an example of excessive political correctness. Perhaps the core of the controversy, however, relates to the role of English in forming national identity. Opponents argue that bilingual education is likely to divide Americans along ethnic lines rather than encouraging all citizens to integrate into an "American" way of life.

Like Krashen, Crawford holds that objections of this kind — whether made in good faith or from a racially or politically biased standpoint — reflect a basic ignorance of bilingual education and related issues such as second language acquisition and the history of non-English-speaking groups in the United States.

Crawford refutes many popular myths surrounding bilingualism and education using statistical findings and documented research. One of the most significant involves cognitive development. During the 1960s, the popular notion that bilingualism handicaps children's cognitive growth was proved unfounded. Since then, research has demonstrated the contrary: multilingualism does not create cognitive confusion; rather, it tends to provide speakers with cognitive advantages. Similarly, the immersion method has been proved ineffective by practical experience. A disproportionate number of non-native speakers failed or dropped out from schools where they were immersed in English without support. According to immersion theory, the quantity of English input is the deciding factor in second language learning success. Research, however, indicates that it is the quality — specifically, comprehensible second-language input — rather than the quantity, that determines success.

Crawford substantiates the points made by Krashen, concluding that the consensus among linguistic experts is clear: native-language teaching does not impede second-language acquisition, and skills well developed in the native language tend to transfer to newly acquired languages. Furthermore, the value of bilingualism for both individuals and society as a whole cannot be denied.

Conclusion and Considerations for the Future

Denying a non-native English learner — especially at the beginning stages of education — the opportunity to be schooled in his or her native language is a serious injustice. It is as unconstitutional as surveillance conducted without a citizen's awareness or consent, and it represents a denial of the basic human right to freedom and the opportunity to pursue one's goals. Forcing children into immersion programs deprives them of the chance to learn English at a pace that is both more enjoyable and more effective, as educational research, expert consensus, and historical experience all confirm. The right to meaningful language instruction is one that immigrants have fought for since their arrival on American soil — and those immigrants have been instrumental in shaping the United States as it exists today.

The current state of affairs regarding bilingual education suggests that the United States is not living up to the ideals enshrined in its founding laws. This gap between ideal and practice is not new — it was present during the era of slavery, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, and the systematic repression of minority groups. The country is at risk of once again falling into the trap of intolerance dressed up as patriotism and national security. This is a war that cannot be won as long as citizens are denied basic rights.

The breadth of support for the anti-bilingual position also points to a troubling deficit in critical thinking among the American public. Rather than examining the claims made by anti-bilingualist politicians and officials, many people have been moved by emotion and political anxiety to adopt a position that is harmful both to the children directly affected and to the future of the country.

Perhaps it is time for both the American public and its leaders to draw on past success to guide future policy. English is not going to be displaced by the many languages spoken in the country if children are taught English in an effective, targeted, and knowledge-rich way. The real danger lies in immersion programs that discourage children and prevent them from ever acquiring genuine English proficiency. As history shows, this leads to high dropout rates, a less-skilled workforce, and a weaker economy — outcomes that serve no one's interests.

In conclusion, xenophobia has never had, and must not be allowed to have, a place in American constitutional principles. Every citizen and newcomer to the country should receive what the Constitution promises: freedom and opportunity for all.

References

Crawford, James (1998). "Bilingual Education." Retrieved from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/biling.htm

Krashen, Stephen (accessed 2007, March 13). "Why Bilingual Education?" ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-3/bilingual.html

Meyer, Lois (1998, Spring). "A Critical Look at the Unz Initiative: 'English for the Children.'" Retrieved from http://www.hument.ucla.edu/hument/linguistics/people/grads/macswan/Unzguide.htm

National Association for Bilingual Education. (2004). "Does Bilingual Education Really Work?" Retrieved from

Rethinking Schools Online (1998, Spring). "History of Bilingual Education." Rethinking Schools, Vol. 12, No. 3. Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_03/langhst.shtml

The Internationalist (2003, January). "Bilingual Education Under Racist Attack." Retrieved from http://www.internationalist.org/bilingualeducation0103.html