Bilingual education's shortcomings pointed out

While flipping through some family albums a few years ago, I ran across one of my old report cards. In it my teacher wrote, “Jorge’s English is improving very rapidly, if not his behavior.”

Beyond the reach of my earliest memories, I attended a bilingual school. Spanish was my first language, yet as long as I can remember I have always gone to school in and preferred English, even when living in Latin America.

It’s hard to imagine myself in a bilingual class. But there in front of me was the proof. I am the product of bilingual education.

The extent of my bilingual education experience – more than 20 years ago – seems to have been one year in kindergarten. This is a far cry from the experiences of children in bilingual education classes in Arizona today.

My teachers focused their attention on teaching me English. The program was only bilingual in the sense that the teachers could speak Spanish and would occasionally help me in my then-native language.

Today, no self-respecting bilingual education proponent would dare classify such a program as “bilingual education.” They might call it structured immersion, or even “sink or swim.”

The recent Dec. 8 article by Wayne Holm – “Bilingual Education Should Remain An Option in Arizona” – not only criticizes me specifically but also contains many easily refutable claims.

There is tangible evidence that English immersion does work. All one has to do is look at the improvement in language test scores for minority students in California after that state approved a ballot initiative which virtually eliminated bilingual education.

In fact, those schools that aggressively implemented English immersion programs had higher levels of improvement than schools that kept their bilingual programs.

Even the very best bilingual programs were barely able to match the performance of English immersion schools.

In 1997 the National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most prestigious scientific body, released a two-year review of all available research on bilingual education. Their conclusion, “We do not yet know whether there will be long-term advantages or disadvantages to initial literacy instruction in the primary language versus English, given a very high-quality program of known effectiveness in both cases.”

In other words, after 30 years of research, hundreds of studies, and hundreds of millions of research dollars, the best that can be said about bilingual education is that we don’t know if it is helping or hurting students. And the Ramirez study, which Holm cites, found no difference between English immersion and transitional bilingual education.

The critique that the supporters of bilingual education are motivated, at least in part, by money is a valid one. The fact remains that bilingual teachers are paid a premium over all other teachers. Once bilingual education goes, so does thousands of extra dollars for each bilingual teacher.

Just this week, the Los Angeles Unified School District announced that it is considering ending the $5,000 in extra pay for bilingual teachers because of the end of bilingual education.

Although there are many factors that contribute to the high dropout rates for Latino students, it is clear that bilingual education programs, which purposefully delay English acquisition, are a factor in this problem. Bilingual theory states that children must first learn to read and write in their native language before they can learn English and that adults and older students learn languages easier and faster than young children do.

In practice this means children must spend five to seven years trapped in bilingual classroom before they can enter a mainstream classroom. Often, they still lack sufficient English skills to succeed.

Nevertheless, there are successful bilingual programs that make students proficient in both English and their native language. These should be applauded and preserved, if not expanded.

Bilingualism should be encouraged, especially in a state like Arizona with such a rich heritage of Spanish and indigenous languages. Unfortunately, model programs like these are the exception and should not prevent Arizona voters from pursuing substantive educational reform.

In California, model bilingual programs survived by turning their schools into charter or alternative school, and therefore exempt from the new English instruction law. The same option will be available to Arizona schools if voters approve the proposed ballot initiative being promoted by “English for the Children of Arizona” in November.

Finally I must address Holm’s claim that the current bilingual program is optional for all students. Mission View Elementary school in Tucson, and five other Tucson schools are “bilingual only.”

When Gloria Martinez tried to remove her grandchildren who speak English from the bilingual program at Mission View, her request was denied.

All of the students in these six schools are placed in bilingual programs regardless of their parents’ wishes and even if they only speak English. This is not optional. The proposed initiative, on the other hand, allows parents to choose a bilingual program for their child.

Jorge Amselle is the Vice President for Education at the Center for Equal Opportunity in Washington, D.C.



Comments are closed.