Bilingual Education

The Congress should resist the push to end programs

What observers may choose to call a special language program is not nearly as important as what that program does. Paying too much attention to labels in the attempt to promote English fluency among limited-English-proficient students could end up setting school districts back as they struggle to incorporate them into the mainstream.

Sadly, that key distinction appears to have escaped Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land. His bill, the English for Children Act, would go to the extreme of repealing the federal bilingual education program and dismantling the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Affairs.

Recently approved legislation sponsored by Rep. Frank Riggs, R-Calif., is basically sound. It should not be seen as opposing bilingual education. He would have Congress issue block grants to the states in the amount of all federal funding now going to bilingual and immigrant education, if present programs did not reach the goal of English fluency within three years.

That approach would not guarantee that alternative programs would work better than reformed bilingual education programs. Many language experts note that English-Spanish similarities in alphabets and phonetics are a powerful argument for bilingual education. But that approach may not work well for, say, speakers of Asian languages. Choice is therefore important, but for very specific reasons.

It may sound improbable, but more than 30 years after Congress first passed bilingual education legislation, there is reason to think bilingual education programs have not been given a fair chance to work. Yes, three decades of experience strongly imply otherwise, but Texas’ historical record shows that the programs have been subjected to a long roller-coaster ride lacking consistency and being victimized by opposing politicians who sought to open or close the public purse, or by ideologues bent on linguistic jihads.

Congressional critics also charge that low academic achievement among students of limited English proficiency continues to be of major concern. That’s true as well. But let’s not forget that the challenge has exploded in size beyond anyone’s expectations. Members of Congress such as Mr. DeLay may wish to recall that no institution in American life has been more responsible for the growth of the challenge than Congress itself.

Since the mid-1960s, Congress’ liberal immigration policies have resulted in more than 25 million newcomers and their children adding to the population of the nation’s cities. But that was only a running start. According to Census Bureau estimates, 88 percent of the increase in the population of children between 2000 and 2050 are likely to be the children of new immigrants.

In light of this larger perspective, the debate over bilingual education deserves better than facile arguments. It is time to stop playing to the extremes. It is time to stop demanding accountability in the classroom without first demonstrating it in the cloakroom.

In other words, it is time for Congress to take the sensible middle ground and promote the best of existing programs, rather than scrapping them altogether. When it comes to bilingual education, Congress should mend it, not end it.

Fifth of six parts



Comments are closed.