The Reagan Administration will seek changes in Federal bilingual education programs to give local school districts more flexibility in choosing teaching methods and to emphasize fluency in English rather than knowledge of students’ native languages and culture, according to Education Secretary William J. Bennett.

In a speech he is to deliver at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel this morning, Mr. Bennett charges that over the last two decades Federal policies toward bilingual education have become ”confused as to purpose and overbearing as to means.”

Seeking Local Autonomy

”After $1.7 billion of Federal funding, we have no evidence that the children whom we sought to help – that the children who deserve our help – have benefited,” he says in his prepared text, a copy of which was obtained from Education Department sources by The New York Times.

Mr. Bennett says the Department of Education, which is drafting regulations to carry out last year’s renewal of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, will use these regulations as a vehicle for putting the new ideas into effect. In addition, he says the department will ”explore with Congress” the possibility of new legislation to allow school districts virtually complete autonomy in deciding how to teach students who are not fluent in English.

Mr. Bennett says the endorsement of local autonomy ”should not be mistaken for a return to the old days of sink or swim.” He says the Administration intends to continue to support Federal spending on bilingual programs and to ”enforce the requirement that school districts provide equal oppportunity for students deficient in English.”

Debate Is Reopened

In announcing the new policies, which have been expected for some time, Mr. Bennett is reopening debate on one of the most controversial issues in American education. His ideas were immediately attacked by advocates of current bilingual education policies, which encourage instruction in a student’s native tongue.

James J. Lyons, legislative counsel to the National Association fo Bilingual Education, called the proposals ”a smokescreen for cutting bilingual programs.” Angelo Gonzalez, executive director of Aspira of New York, a Puerto Rican community group, described his reaction as ”one of despair and frustration and anger.” Restoring local options in choosing teaching methods, he charged, would constitute ”a shirking of Federal responsibility for bilingual programming.”

Congressional sources expressed little enthusiasm for the idea of reopening legislative debate over the complex and emotionally charged issue.

Respect for the Law Urged

Augustus F. Hawkins, a California Democrat who is chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, commented: ”Last year the Administration tried to gut the bilingual education law, and the Congress rejected that attempt. I certainly hope that the Secretary will not try to do the same thing this year through regulation. I would expect the Secretary to respect the law, or we will be forced to pursue every available legal avenue.”

Polly Gault, staff director of the Senate Subcommittee on Education, Arts and the Humanities, commented, ”It’s odd that he would come up with this kind of a proposal at this time. We just finished dealing with bilingual legislation, and we’re in the middle of a $12 billion higher education bill.”

Mr. Bennett’s speech is to be given this morning to the Association for a Better New York, a business-oriented civic group.

Educators Disagree

In his address, the Secretary notes that Federal programs for bilingual education grew out of the civil rights and antipoverty movements of the 1960’s as means of helping children with ”limited English proficiency” to learn better.

”The purpose of such steps was clear – to teach these students English,” he says. ”Schools were free to use whatever means they judged would be effective in the pursuit of this goal.”

Educators disagree widely on the most effective way of teaching such students. Some believe that academic subjects should be taught in students’ native tongues, with students studying English on the side and perhaps using it for subjects such as art. Others favor using English in all subjects from the outset under the guidance of specially trained teachers.

Emphasis on Culture

In 1974, largely in response to pressure from Hispanic groups and other organizations, Congress broadened the purpose of the Bilingual Education Act from providing a transition to English to promoting knowledge of students’ native languages and cultures as well.

The 1974 law also required schools for the first time to offer instruction in students’ native tongue rather than to make use of ”English as a Second Language” or other methods in which English is the primary language of instruction. Last year’s legislation follows the same general lines, with the exception that 4 percent of funds can now be awarded for ”alternative instructional methods” of their own choosing.

Mr. Bennett says he would like to expand that local autonomy to 100 percent of bilingual education funds. He says it is ”foolish” to believe that only Washington meant well and knew best, ”especially in the absence of research establishing the superiority of instruction in a student’s native language. There was – and is – no evidence of such superiority,” he said.

Researchers are divided about which approach is the most effective.

”We shall therefore explore with Congress the possibility of removing the 4 percent cap on alternative instructional methods as well as other legislative changes,” he says, ”and we shall seek through regulatory and administrative changes to provide, in general, greater flexibility for local school districts.”

‘Common Language Is English’

Throughout his talk Mr. Bennett emphasizes the importance of English as a unifying force in American society. ”To be a citizen is to share in something common – in common principles, common memories and a common language in which to discuss our common affairs,” he declares. ”Our common language is, of course, English. And our common task is to ensure that our non-English speaking children learn this common language.”

The Secretary emphasizes that such an agenda for bilingual education does not preclude the promoting of ethnic pride. ”We in the United States cherish our diversity, and local schools should be free – and more should be encouraged – to foster the study of the languages and heritages of their students in the courses they offer,” he says. ”But the responsiblity of the Federal government must be to help ensure that local schools succeed in teaching non-English speaking students English, so that every American enjoys access to the opportunities of American society.”



Comments are closed.