Ten Common Fallacies about Bilingual Education
Researchers have made considerable advances in the fields of
psycholinguistics, second language acquisition, bilingual pedagogy, and multicultural
education. Today, we know a great deal more about the challenges faced by
English language learners and about promising strategies for overcoming them.
One such strategy, bilingual education, has been the subject of increasing
controversy. Although a growing body of research points to the potential
benefits, there are a number of commonly held beliefs about bilingual education
that run counter to research findings. Based on current research, this digest
clarifies some of the myths and misconceptions surrounding language use and
bilingual education in the United States.
FALLACY 1: ENGLISH IS LOSING GROUND TO OTHER LANGUAGES IN THE
UNITED STATES
More world languages are spoken in the United States today
than ever before. However, this is a quantitative, not a qualitative change
from earlier periods. Concentrations of non-English language speakers were
common in the 19th century, as reflected by laws authorizing native language
instruction in a dozen states and territories. In big cities as well as rural
areas, children attended bilingual and non-English schools, learning in languages
as diverse as French, Norwegian, Czech, and Cherokee. In 1900, there were
at least 600,000 elementary school children receiving part or all of their
instruction in German (Kloss 1998). Yet English survived without any help
from government, such as official-language legislation.
FALLACY 2: NEWCOMERS TO THE UNITED STATES ARE LEARNING ENGLISH
MORE SLOWLY NOW THAN IN PREVIOUS GENERATIONS
To the contrary, today's immigrants appear to be acquiring
English more rapidly than ever before. While the number of minority-language
speakers is projected to grow well into the next century, the number of bilinguals
fluent in both English and another language is growing even faster. Between
1980 and 1990, the number of immigrants who spoke non-English languages at
home increased by 59%, while the portion of this population that spoke English
very well rose by 93% (Waggoner, 1995). In 1990, only 3% of U.S. residents
reported speaking English less than well or very well. Only eight-tenths
of one percent spoke no English at all. About three in four Hispanic immigrants,
after 15 years in this country, speak English on a daily basis, while 70%
of their children become dominant or monolingual in English (Veltman, 1988).
FALLACY 3: THE BEST WAY TO LEARN A LANGUAGE IS THROUGH "TOTAL
IMMERSION"
There is no credible evidence to support the "time on task" theory
of language learning--the claim that the more children are exposed to English,
the more English they will learn. Research shows that what counts is not
just the quantity, but the quality of exposure. Second-language input must
be comprehensible to promote second-language acquisition (Krashen, 1996).
If students are left to sink or swim in mainstream classrooms, with little
or no help in understanding native-their lessons, they won't learn much English.
If native-language instruction is used to make lessons meaningful, they will
learn more English--and more subject matter, too.
FALLACY 4: CHILDREN LEARNING ENGLISH ARE RETAINED TOO LONG IN
BILINGUAL CLASSROOMS, AT THE EXPENSE OF ENGLISH ACQUISITION
Time spent learning in well designed bilingual programs is
learning time well spent. Knowledge and skills acquired in the native language--literacy
in particular--are "transferable" to the second language. They do not need
to be relearned in English (Krashen, 1996; Cummins, 1992). Thus, there is
no reason to rush limited-English-proficient (LEP) students into the mainstream
before they are ready.
Research over the past two decades has determined that, despite
appearances, it takes children a long time to attain full proficiency in
a second language. Often, they are quick to learn the conversational English
used on the playground, but normally they need several years to acquire the
cognitively demanding, decontextualized language used for academic pursuits
(Collier & Thomas, 1989).
Bilingual education programs that emphasize a gradual transition
to English and offer native-language instruction in declining amounts over
time, provide continuity in children's cognitive growth and lay a foundation
for academic success in the second language. By contrast, English-only approaches
and quick-exit bilingual programs can interrupt that growth at a crucial
stage, with negative effects on achievement (Cummins, 1992).
FALLACY 5: SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROVIDE BILINGUAL INSTRUCTION IN
SCORES OF NATIVE LANGUAGES
Where children speak a number of different languages, rarely
are there sufficient numbers of each language group to make bilingual instruction
practical for everyone. In any case, the shortage of qualified teachers usually
makes it impossible. For example, in 1994 California enrolled recently arrived
immigrants from 136 different countries, but bilingual teachers were certified
in only 17 languages, 96% of them in Spanish (CDE, 1995).
FALLACY 6: BILINGUAL EDUCATION MEANS INSTRUCTION MAINLY IN STUDENTS'
NATIVE LANGUAGES, WITH LITTLE INSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH
Before 1994, the vast majority of U.S. bilingual education
programs were designed to encourage an early exit to mainstream English language
classrooms, while only a tiny fraction of programs were designed to maintain
the native tongues of students.
Today, a majority of bilingual programs continue to deliver
a substantial portion of the curriculum in English. According to one study,
school districts reported that 28% of LEP elementary school students receive
no native-language instruction. Among those who do, about a third receive
more than 75% of their instruction in English; a third receive from 40 to
75% in English; and one third of these receive less than 40% in English.
Secondary school students are less likely to be instructed in their native
language than elementary school students (Hopstock et al. 1993).
FALLACY 7: BILINGUAL EDUCATION IS FAR MORE COSTLY THAN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
All programs serving LEP students--regardless of the language
of instruction--require additional staff training, instructional materials,
and administration. So they all cost a little more than regular programs
for native English speakers. But in most cases the differential is modest.
A study commissioned by the California legislature examined a variety of
well implemented program models and found no budgetary advantage for English-only
approaches. The incremental cost was about the same each year ($175-$214)
for bilingual and English immersion programs, as compared with $1,198 for
English as a second language (ESL) "pullout" programs. The reason was simple:
the pullout approach requires supplemental teachers, whereas in-class approaches
do not (Chambers & Parrish, 1992). Nevertheless, ESL pullout remains
the method of choice for many school districts, especially where LEP students
are diverse, bilingual teachers are in short supply, or expertise is lacking
in bilingual methodologies.
FALLACY 8: DISPROPORTIONATE DROPOUT RATES FOR HISPANIC STUDENTS
DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION
Hispanic dropout rates remain unacceptably high. Research
has identified multiple factors associated with this problem, including recent
arrival in the United States, family poverty, limited English proficiency,
low academic achievement, and being retained in grade (Lockwood, 1996). No
credible studies, however, have identified bilingual education among the
risk factors, because bilingual programs touch only a small minority of Hispanic
children.
FALLACY 9: RESEARCH IS INCONCLUSIVE ON THE BENEFITS OF BILINGUAL
EDUCATION
Some critics argue that the great majority of bilingual program
evaluations are so egregiously flawed that their findings are useless. After
reviewing 300 such studies, Rossell and Baker (1996) judged only 72 to be
methodologically acceptable. Of these, they determined that a mere 22% supported
the superiority of transitional programs over English-only instruction in
reading, 9% in math, and 7% in language. Moreover, they concluded that "TBE
[transitional bilingual education] is never better than structured immersion" in
English. In other words, they could find little evidence that bilingual education
works.
Close analysis of Rossell and Baker's claims reveals some serious
flaws of their own. Krashen (1996) questions the rigor of several studies
the reviewers included as methodologically acceptable--all unfavorable to
bilingual education and many unpublished in the professional literature.
Moreover, Rossell and Baker relied heavily on program evaluations from the
1970s, when bilingual pedagogies were considerably less well developed. Compounding
these weaknesses is their narrative review technique, which simply counts
the votes for or against a program alternative--a method that leaves considerable
room for subjectivity and reviewer bias (Dunkel, 1990).
Meta-analysis, a more objective method that weighs numerous
variables in each study under review, has yielded more positive findings
about bilingual education (Greene, 1998; Willig, 1985).
Most important, Krashen (1996) shows that Rossell and Baker
are content to compare programs by the labels they have been given, with
little consideration of the actual pedagogies being used. They treat as equivalent
all approaches called TBE, even though few program details are available
in many of the studies under review. Researchers who take the time to visit
real classrooms understand how dangerous such assumptions can be. According
to Hopstock et al. (1993), "When actual practices...are examined, a bilingual
education program might provide more instruction in English than...an 'English
as a second language' program." Moreover, from a qualitative perspective,
programs vary considerably in how (one or both) languages are integrated
into the curriculum and into the social context of the school. Finally, simplistic
labels are misleading because bilingual and English immersion techniques
are not mutually exclusive; several studies have shown that successful programs
make extensive use of both (see, e.g., Ramirez et al., 1991).
Even when program descriptions are available, Rossell and Baker
sometimes ignore them. For example, they cite a bilingual immersion program
in El Paso as a superior English-only (submersion) approach, although it
includes 90 minutes of Spanish instruction each day in addition to sheltered
English. The researchers also include in their review several studies of
French immersion in Canada, which they equate with all-English, structured
immersion programs in the United States. As the Canadian program designers
have repeatedly stressed, these models are bilingual in both methods and
goals, and they serve students with needs that are quite distinct from those
of English learners in this country.
FALLACY 10: LANGUAGE-MINORITY PARENTS DO NOT SUPPORT BILINGUAL
EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY FEEL IT IS MORE IMPORTANT FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO LEARN
ENGLISH THAN TO MAINTAIN THE NATIVE LANGUAGE
Naturally, when pollsters place these goals in opposition,
immigrant parents will opt for English by wide margins. Who knows better
the need to learn English than those who struggle with language barriers
on a daily basis? But the premise of such surveys is false. Truly bilingual
programs seek to cultivate proficiency in both tongues, and research has
shown that students' native language can be maintained and developed at no
cost to English. When polled on the principles underlying bilingual education
for example, that developing literacy in the first language facilitates literacy
development in English or that bilingualism offers cognitive and career-related
advantages--a majority of parents are strongly in favor of such approaches
(Krashen, 1996).
References and Resources
|
