This paper examines bilingual education in United States elementary schools, focusing on three program types: ESL withdrawal, structured immersion, and submersion. It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and argues that structured immersion, when administered with cultural sensitivity, is the most effective model. The paper also traces the history of bilingual education legislation from 19th-century state laws through the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 to the No Child Left Behind Act and California's Proposition 227. It concludes that recent English-only legislative initiatives are pedagogically unsound, historically regressive, and constitutionally questionable.
The type of program used in the classroom is an approach known as a bilingual withdrawal program, or English as a Second Language (ESL). Through this program, students are taught in English while a withdrawal component is used to help them gradually become accustomed to setting aside their mother tongue. In this way it is easier for them to keep up with the work being taught in the mainstream classroom, as they do not have to strain to understand the medium of instruction itself.
Through the withdrawal program, instructors are not required to be proficient in the home language of students. The curriculum is structured to help students learn English, and the ESL class set up for this purpose meets every day during school hours for instruction.
Problems that can occur with this kind of instruction relate to the fact that students are withdrawn from the classroom during regular instruction time. As a result, students may develop difficulties keeping up with class content, and the purpose of the program is thus somewhat defeated. A further problem can arise when these students are singled out as being less competent than those who remain in the classroom, which can itself undermine the goal of learning. Students may come to feel that their language gap is an insurmountable hurdle, and this perception compounds the original language difficulty.
While this program is indeed being used in the classroom, there are elements that could benefit from improvement. Nonetheless, the majority of students benefit from the program and find classwork easier as a result. The way in which teachers administer these programs is also important: if both the administrative and emotional dimensions of the situation are handled correctly, second-language students do benefit.
The two other bilingual programs currently prevalent in United States elementary schools are submersion and structured immersion. Submersion entails placing students in an English-only classroom with no additional support for their English language development. The expectation is that students will be compelled to learn English in an environment where instruction occurs exclusively in English and where many classmates are native English speakers. The underlying rationale is that, being immersed in an environment with only one medium of communication, students will acquire that medium as quickly as possible.
This method has been criticized for being ineffective and for contributing to higher dropout rates. Furthermore, the anxiety experienced by submersion students itself becomes an obstacle to learning, since children learn best in environments perceived as stress-free and supportive. A classroom dominated by native English speakers is not always perceived that way.
Structured immersion also aims to have students learn English as quickly as possible, but does so with the support of the student's mother tongue. The teacher is proficient in the home language and assists students whenever difficulty arises with English. The minority language does not govern instruction; rather, it serves as a bridge toward learning English more quickly. This environment is more supportive of the learner's efforts while still being conducive to acquiring the new language, and it avoids singling students out as incompetent or in need of remedial out-of-class work.
In the initial stages of this program, students are permitted to use their home language when asking and answering questions, though they are consistently encouraged to use English instead. While this approach could still make some students feel alienated, much depends on how the teacher manages instruction. Teachers must be skilled at addressing the stress and emotional challenges that second-language learners experience.
Some critics have argued that bilingual maintenance programs are the most effective, since they help second-language learners remain connected to their home language while also acquiring the target language. This approach is also said to help students develop a more positive self-image with respect to their own language and culture.
Of the three programs discussed, submersion is the least effective. Placing a second-language learner directly into an environment perceived as hostile cultivates anxiety that actively detracts from learning. Difficulty with the language compounds difficulty with assignments and class activities. More than any other approach, submersion detracts from the learning experience rather than contributing to it. Students are expected to build skills on a foundation that is practically non-existent.
The ESL withdrawal program is somewhat better from the students' perspective, since it acknowledges their language background and provides explicit instruction in the target language. The drawback, however, is that this instruction occurs during school hours, leaving students struggling to keep pace with regular classroom work and assignments. It is therefore an improvement over submersion, but still leaves much to be desired.
Structured immersion allows students to receive their language support within the regular classroom setting. Although it remains possible for students to feel alienated and self-conscious, a culturally sensitive teacher can largely counteract these feelings through thoughtful classroom management. Effective administration of this program therefore requires teachers to develop and apply cultural sensitivity skills.
Bilingual maintenance principles can also be incorporated into structured immersion. While students are encouraged to use English rather than their mother tongue, a culturally sensitive teacher can use the opportunity to make the entire class aware of the diversity and cultures represented in the room. This builds the self-image of second-language students and encourages them to use English as a vehicle for sharing their own culture and customs. Though this is not a formal bilingual maintenance program, it cultivates cultural pride and fosters inclusive awareness. For these reasons, structured immersion is the superior program of the three considered here.
The influx of immigrants to the United States during the 18th and 19th centuries made it necessary to develop policies regarding bilingual education. Ohio became the first state to adopt a bilingual law, in 1839, permitting German-English instruction in schools upon parental request. French-English instruction was similarly authorized in Louisiana in 1847, and the New Mexico Territory adopted provisions for Spanish-English instruction in 1850. By the end of the 19th century, approximately a dozen states had passed comparable laws, while many others provided bilingual instruction without formal legislation. Languages represented in such education included Norwegian, Italian, Polish, Czech, and Cherokee.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a greater percentage of students were enrolled in German-language programs than are enrolled in Spanish-English programs today. Enrollment surveys show that approximately 600,000 primary school students were receiving at least some instruction in German, representing 4% of all American children in that age group.
During World War I, political instability and concerns about loyalty — focused particularly on German Americans — shaped public opinion toward foreign languages. Many states enacted English-only instruction laws aimed at "Americanizing" all foreign-language speakers, and some states went so far as to ban the study of any foreign language at the elementary level. This ban was ruled unconstitutional in 1923 and subsequently abandoned.
The mid-1920s saw the near-disappearance of bilingual schooling, and English-only instruction became the norm for all students. States were eventually forced to reconsider this approach as foreign-language students fell behind and dropped out of school in large numbers.
A legislative remedy was not implemented until 1968, in the form of the Bilingual Education Act. The civil rights movements of the 1960s and the growing importance of immigration both prompted this legislation in the name of fairness and equality. The Act provided federal funds to encourage the incorporation of native-language instruction in schools, and most states subsequently enacted their own bilingual education laws, once again permitting the use of languages other than English in the classroom.
"No Child Left Behind replaces 1968 Act; funding shifts"
"California English-only law and its educational impact"
You’re 51% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.