In one provocative speech, Education Secretary William Bennett has reopened the national debate on bilingual education and done so constructively. He calls the present Federal policy, with its emphasis on instruction in the student’s native language, ”confused” and ”overbearing.” He wants to give local school districts more flexibility to help students become proficient in English as quickly as possible. That desirable goal should, by now, be beyond dispute.

Congress intended school districts to have flexibility when it passed the Bilingual Education Act in 1968 to support any ”new and imaginative” program for non-English-speaking students. Since 1975, however, funding has been available only to those local school districts engaging in ”transitional bilingual education” or instruction principally in the native language until the student is able to attend classes taught in English. Often instruction in the foreign language goes on too long, impeding the student’s mastery of English.

Which works best, continued instruction in a foreign language or immersion in English? Research results are inconclusive. Thus in 1984 Congress authorized that 4 percent of the $139 million appropriated for bilingual education be reserved for a variety of approaches. This year, the Department of Education is receiving much more than that in requests to fund alternative programs. Mr. Bennett proposes returning to the principle of maximum local flexibility. He will ask Congress to remove the 4 percent cap. He’s right: the Federal Government should not limit funds to only one pedagogical method. It should be concerned with the ultimate goal, helping children become proficient in English as quickly as possible.

Nonetheless, a desire for flexibility should not diminish the obligation of school districts to their non-English-speaking students. The Supreme Court has ruled that failure to provide such students some instruction in their native language can deny them equal educational opportunity. Yet some students are still not receiving adequate services.

In New York City, the Board of Education concedes that it serves only three-fourths of the 113,000 students eligible for bilingual instruction. There is more wrong with bilingual education than method of instruction. The Education Department should diligently monitor school districts’ good faith in honoring students’ educational rights.

Mr. Bennett is exactly right when he says that American citizens must share a ”common language in which to discuss our common affairs.” English is the pot in which the melting takes place. Failure to speak and understand the American language hampers any citizen’s ability to participate in American life. With that goal agreed on, variety in instructional methods is the best policy.



Comments are closed.