See for yourself what researchers say about bilingual education

Scanning the Research
The curious, the sleepless and the brave will find here summaries of some of the most significant research performed on bilingual education. While the studies included are representative of the body of existing research, this compilation is by no means exhaustive. A few notable studies are missing, because the Weekly could not obtain copies to review; some others we probably just overlooked. The really curious and brave can find the full text of some of the articles discussed below, as well as many others, at the following Web sites:

The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education

The homepage of Jim Crawford, a journalist and bilingual-ed historian

The Center for Multilingual/Multicultural Research at the University of Southern California

The Language Minority Research Institute at UC Santa Barbara

The National Research Council

The READ Institute

The Pioneer Institute

CONTENTS:
One-sentence, headline-style summaries are provided with each listing. The studies are listed in roughly chronological order. Following the contents, in the same order, are more in-depth summaries the sources.

1978:
Snow and Hoefnagel-H?hle, “The Critical Period for Language Acquisition: Evidence From Second Language Learning.”
Finding: Contrary to common belief, younger children do not learn languages faster.

1985:
Willig, “A Meta-Analysis of Selected Studies on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education.”
Finding: Another look, with very different results, at the data behind Baker and De Kanter’s 1981 anti-bilingual-ed study.

1989, 1995, 1997:
Collier and Thomas, “How Quickly Can Immigrants Become Proficient in School English?”; “Acquiring a Second Language for School”; and “School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students.”
Three articles by two of bilingual ed’s most vocal supporters.

1990:
Porter, “Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education”
Bilingual ed’s biggest critic vents her rage.

1991:
Cummins and Genzuk, “Analysis of Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs…”
Finding: Cummins, the founding father of bilingual education, draws his own conclusions from the influential Ramirez Report. He and his collaborator conclude that the Ramirez Report data offers strong support for bilingual education.

Ramirez, Yuen and Ramey, “Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority Children – Executive Summary,”
Finding: The results of an eight-year study comparing English immersion programs and two forms of bilingual education are cautiously supportive of bilingual education.

Samaniego and Eubank, “A Statistical Analysis of California’s Case Study Project in Bilingual Education.”
Finding: These statisticians argues that the same bilingual program may work well in one place but not another.

1993:
Fleischman and Hopstock, “Descriptive Study of Services to Limited English Proficiency Students: Volume 1: Summary of Findings and Conclusions.”
A detailed study of the services available to English learners.

Little Hoover Commission, “A Chance to Succeed: Providing English Learners With Supportive Education.” Finding: The rigidity of California’s bilingual-ed policies have undermined local efforts to educate students who aren’t fluent in English.

1994:
Thomas B. Parrish “A Cost Analysis of Alternative Instructional Models for Limited English Proficient Students in California.”
Finding: Reviews the price – in dollars – of various programs for English learners and concludes that programs based on using a students’ primary language are not more expensive than immersion programs.

1995:
Campos, “The Carpinteria Preschool Program.” Finding: Children in an all-Spanish preschool program learn English faster than children in other settings.

Moss and Puma, “Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational Growth and Opportunity, First Year Report on Language Minority and Limited English Proficiency Students.” Finding: Children who aren’t fluent in English usually have other problems that also hamper their learning and it’s hard to evaluate programs accurately because they differ so much from classroom to classroom.

1996:
Rossell & Baker, “The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education.” Finding: Bilingual ed’s most noted critics make their case for English immersion, but also recognize the value of some transitional use of a child’s native language.

1997:
James Crawford, “Best Evidence: Research Foundations of the Bilingual Education Act.”
Finding: An advocate reviews bilingual-ed research and concludes that bilingual education is a sound approach.

National Research Council, Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children: A Research Agenda.
Finding: The NRC looks at what’s really known about bilingual ed and concludes that the approach has benefits, but that some of the most important research has yet to be done.

U.C. Davis Linguistic Minority Research Institute Education Policy Center, “Review of the Research on Instruction of Limited English Proficiency Students.”
Finding: There are no good data on the academic performance of limited-English students, at any level or in any subject area.

Glenn, “What Does the National Research Council Study Tell Us About Educating Language Minority Children?”
Finding: A bilingual-ed critic interprets the NRC’s findings as lending strong support to forces against bilingual ed.

August and Hakuta, letter to Rosalie Porter. The authors of the ground-breaking National Research Council report dispute an assertion that the report offers no support for bilingual education.

Mitchell, Destino and Karam, “Evaluation of English Language Development Programs in the Santa Ana Unified School District: A Report on Data System Reliability and Statistical Modeling of Program Impacts.”
A very detailed study of programs for English learners in Santa Ana.

1998:
Cummins, “Beyond Adversarial Discourse: Searching for Common Ground in the Education of Bilingual Students”
Finding: Bilingual ed’s most venerable academic supporter argues that bilingual education works but there are important caveats to keep in mind and that partisans of all stripes have misinterpreted his research.

Greene, “A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education.”
Finding: A review of research that Rossell and Baker used to attack bilingual ed was flawed. In truth, the studies cited offer support for bilingual ed.



Comments are closed.