Educators debate language of learning

WASHINGTON—The debate on bilingual education is heating up again as Congress considers reissuing the legislation that got it all started 25 years ago.

One group supplying the heat now is LEAD, Learning English Advocates Drive, headed by Los Angeles teacher Sally Peterson, who argues today’s bilingual education programs are a fraud meant only to keep kids trapped in the program.

Defenders say that it’s the information presented by LEAD that’s distorted, and that bilingual programs do work.

LEAD’s supporters say the federal bilingual legislation first authorized in 1968 embodies the theory that students with limited English speaking skills lose ground in traditional academic subjects unless they are taught in their native tongue. Students should learn English at the same time, but not be penalized by having to learn math, science and other subjects in a language they don’t understand, the theory goes.

But Christine Rossell, political science professor at Boston University, says research either doesn’t support the so-called “facilitation hypothesis” or contradicts it. Of 36 studies Rossell says are scientifically valid, she says 71% showed students either doing no better or worse in English language skills than students without traditional bilingual instruction. And 93% did no better or worse in math.

“There’s no evidence it helps children and some evidence it hurts,” she says.

She said the priority of any bilingual program should be getting children speaking English, since that’s the best predictor of later success for students from homes where English isn’t the native language.

James Lyons, executive director, National Association of Bilingual Educators, says no one discounts the fact that children from non-English speaking homes should learn English.

“But our schools teach a helluva lot more than just English,” Lyons says. “Kids need math and science. They won’t succeed merely because they know English.”

He says a longitudinal study by the Department of Education showed that kids in fact do better with long-term transitional programs.

“There are so many factual errors in what they said, it’s really quite unbelievable,” Lyons says.

He also says parental involvement improves with transitional programs.

“If the instruction provided is exclusively in English, parents (of limited English ability) are foreclosed from participating,” he says.

Others argue schools should maintain foreign language skills children bring to school with them, since the U.S. is already doing badly in teaching second languages to its students, especially compared to European countries.

Peterson agrees that’s important, but considers it a separate issue. She says schools should offer second language programs to children after school or in high school or college. But the main purpose of bilingual programs, she says, should be to help students learn English.



Comments are closed.