Failures of Bilingual Education

English First sent the following letter to every Senator on July 15 1994

Dear Senator,

Supporters of bilingual education have failed to justify its renewal. They are desperate. The National Council of La Raza has even tried to mislead Congress on the effectiveness of bilingual education programs, programs which are renewed and expanded under S.1513. In their letter to the House of Representatives on February 28, they claim:

Without the programs made possible by Title VII, LEP [Limited English Proficient] students will . . . be more likely to suffer from high drop-out rates, low rates of academic achievement, and disproportionately low rates of placement in gifted and talented programs.

Actually, the facts show that bilingual education at best does not help and more likely hurts LEP children:

Governmental financial support (for bilingual education) will diminish rapidly as it becomes increasingly clear to legislators that the goals of improved Chicano academic achievement are not met. This could be reversed if enough political pressure is exerted by advocates.<1>

La Raza claims that bilingual education reduces drop-out rates. But the Boston Globe reported that bilingual education was the problem, not the solution:

Some educators contend that bilingual education, once viewed as a panacea for Hispanic students, has become another part of the problem. Hispanics in bilingual programs -- nearly half of those in the system -- drop out at an annual rate of 17 percent compared to 16 percent for Hispanics in regular programs. Latinos in bilingual education are suspended and held back in the same grade at rates comparable to students in regular programs.<2>

This demonstrated, ongoing failure has provoked even a supporter of bilingual education to comment:

We have been talking about this problem ever since I have been in Congress and yet the dropout rate seems to be about the same.<3>

From 1978 until 1988, the percentage of school dropouts among Hispanics aged 16 to 24 consistently ran about 50% higher than the dropout percentage among blacks and three times higher than the percentage among whites.<4>

The supporters of bilingual education are not representative of the average person whose children are affected:

On the Hopi Reservation in Arizona, for example, one-third of the students attending a B.I.A. (Bureau of Indian Affairs) school were withdrawn by their parents after the school initiated a bilingual-education program. Joan Timeche, the tribe's education director, says that some parents wanted to keep language instruction in the home, but most feared that the time spent on Hopi would detract from "basic" courses.<5>

Much to the chagrin of bilingual education supporters, a recent study demonstrated that support for bilingual education programs decreases among non-Hispanics almost in proportion to how much they know about it. As the study's authors put it, "Indeed, and somewhat surprisingly, support was lowest among those who knew the most about bilingual education and highest among those who knew the least."<6>

The National Education Association has championed these programs despite the strong opposition of these parents:

(T)here have been many complaints, particularly from the parents of Spanish-speaking students, because they felt that since their children were in an American country, that they should speak the language of the dominant group. It was felt that their children would be retarded if they postponed the learning of English.<7>

It took a great deal of work to convince parents that the concept of bilingual education would help their children succeed in an English-speaking society:

The Spanish-speaking parent is going to be opposed to this (teaching his children in Spanish) in many cases. Just last night at a little barbecue, we were talking about this bill . . . and one fellow said, 'Well, my wife just doesn't want any of this for her children.' I should explain that this was a group of--all of us were Spanish speaking and we were speaking Spanish at the time. . . . These people were afraid of the bill or what it might do because they felt it would slow their children down in learning English. I want to say to them that there is nothing to fear. . . . I want to reassure them.<8>

These reassurances were and remain misleading. Bilingual education is a demonstrated failure at teaching English. As researchers bluntly put it:

Altogether, seventy-one percent (of the studies) show TBE to be no different or worse than the supposedly discredited submersion technique . . . Altogether, ninety-three percent of the studies show it to be no different or worse than the supposedly discredited submersion technique in developing math proficiency.<9>

In addition:

Although the plaintiffs have been successful in arguing on a "common sense" basis that bilingual teachers are necessary for teaching limited-English-proficient students, the empirical research does not support this.<10>

Rossell and Ross's findings would seem to indicate that those who have argued that bilingual education works do not mean that it works to increase English-speaking ability among non-English speakers:

How then to conclude, as so many have in and out of court, that transitional bilingual education is superior? One technique, used by Zappert and Cruz (Bilingual Education: An Appraisal of Empirical Research), is to simply redefine the word. As they argue:

"No significant difference should not be interpreted as a negative finding for bilingual education. . . When one adds the fact that students in bilingual education classrooms learn two languages, their native language and a second language, one can conclude that a statistically non-significant finding demonstrates the positive advantages of bilingual education."

The main argument made for transitional bilingual education in the court decisions and the regulations, however, is that it produces greater English language achievement and content mastery than doing nothing, not the same achievement . . .

Another technique used in research reviews to make transitional bilingual education appear to be superior is to include superior performance in Spanish language arts as one of the research findings demonstrating its superiority. Zappert and Cruz also do this. Again, while we agree this is important, it is not the goal of government policy nor the stated object of the court decisions. If we examine the findings of the twelve studies reviewed by Zappert and Cruz for their effect on English language achievement, sixty-three percent of the findings show no difference between transitional bilingual achievement and doing nothing.<11>

Bilingual education is a failure. It is time Congress replaced it.

Notes:

<1> Thomas P. Carter and Roberto D. Segura, Mexican Americans in School: A Decade of Change (New York, College Entrance Examination Board, 1979) at 383.

<2>Boston Globe, June 10, 1990, at 1, 40.

<3> Statement of Committee Chairman Augustus F. Hawkins, Oversight Hearing on the Educational, Literacy and Social Needs of the Hispanic Community, Hearing before the House Committee on Education and Labor, March 20, 1987, at 101.

<4> "Hispanic Dropout Rate is Put at 35%", New York Times, September 15, 1989, at A12.

<5> "The Quest for Cultural Identity: 'Indian People Just Want To Be Themselves'", Special Report on the Education of Native Americans, Education Week, August 2, 1989, at 16.

<6> Leonie Huddy and David Sears, "Qualified Public Support for Bilingual Education: Some Policy Implications," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 508, March 1990, at 124.

<7> Bilingual Education, Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Bilingual Education, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th Congress, 1st Sess. 63 (1967) at 106 (Statement of Dr. Adalberto M. Guerro).

<8> Id. at 285 (Testimony of A. R. Ramirez).

<9> Christine H. Rossell and J. Michael Ross, "The Social Science Evidence on Bilingual Education," Journal of Law and Education, vol. 15, no. 4, (Fall, 1986) at 399-401.

<10> Id. at 409.

<11> Id. at 401-402.