The issues raised and discussed when my book, Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education, was first published in 1990 have not been resolved, but a quiet revolution is taking place. School districts that for years have provided native-language teaching-with poor results-for the new population of immigrant, migrant, and refugee children entering American classrooms are turning to the sensible, pragmatic approach they should have been used in the first place. I see a definite trend across the country toward replacing the failed bilingual education programs with special English-language instruction, giving these students the means to gain entry into the school community quickly and effectively instead of segregating them for years in separate classes.

 For the 2.5 million children who do not know the English language when they enter U.S. classrooms-the fastest growing group of students in our schools due to the highest immigration levels in U.S. history during the past two decades-there is still no clear agreement on how best to educate them. Are there measurable benefits in teaching these children in their native language for a period of time, to ensure their learning of school subjects while they gradually learn the English language? In what regions are these students concentrated, and what languages do they speak? How much money are we spending on special programs for this population, and what evidence have we collected of the success or failure of these special efforts? How long does it take to learn English well enough to be able to do school work in English? New data reported in the past five years paint a bleak picture of the kind of schooling we are giving these students.

 The current population of limited-English students is being treated in ways that earlier immigrant groups were not. The politically righteous assumption that these children cannot learn English quickly and must be taught all their school subjects in their native language for three to seven years is seriously hurting their chances for an equal educational opportunity and, ironically, is producing more segregation in our schools. When the experimental program called "bilingual education" was introduced in federal legislation under Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968, the stated intent was to help children overcome the language barrier to an equal education, that is, to give them the English language skills they need for learning in a regular classroom with their English-speaking classmates. Ethnic group interests and political expediency instead promoted the idea that limited-English students, in all circumstances, must not be exposed to English too soon or their potential for learning reading, writing, math, science, history, etc., would suffer-an early assumption that has been demonstrated to be untrue.

 Not only is there much more evidence of the failure of bilingual education to do the two things it was intended to do-promote more effective English-language learning and the learning of school subjects-but there is more information available on actual student achievement in places where special English programs are being used. One of the darkest notes in the bilingual education saga is the gravely disconcerting news that in some of the states with the heaviest concentrations of limited-English students and the greatest investment of money and energy for several years in bilingual programs, there has been an almost total lack of accountability. Data on student progress have not been collected, nor has evidence for the superior benefits of native language teaching been documented. Both Massachusetts and California, in state reports published in 1994 and 1992 respectively, admitted to these failures. The state of California, with 1.2 million limited-English students (20 percent of all its schoolchildren) also reported that teachers were not testing students for exit from bilingual programs and keeping these children in bilingual classrooms years beyond the point where they need special help.

 Of all the recent new information available, the study published in October 1994 by the New York City Board of Education deserves special attention. This study compares two large groups of limited-English students who were placed in radically different programs. Spanish and Haitian Creole-speaking students were mostly enrolled in bilingual programs and taught in their native language, with only brief English lessons. Chinese, Korean, and Russian-speaking children were assigned to an English as a Second Language (ESL) program where all instruction from the first day of school is given through a special English curriculum. Their progress was monitored for four years to document their learning of English and math and to determine the number of years they needed to exit to a mainstream classroom.

 Will it surprise anyone to learn that at all grade levels students served in ESL classrooms exited their programs faster than those served in bilingual classrooms? Most students in the ESL program were out of it in two to three years, while most students in bilingual classes took four to seven years to move into regular classrooms. In fact, the study reports that the less time students spent in the special programs the more successful they were in reading and math (taught in English) in mainstream classrooms. The ultimate expression of cynicism was the comment of a school superintendent in a New York district who said to me, "They had to do a research study to know this?"

 In New York as in California, it is not state or federal laws but the power of state education bureaucracies that forces local school districts to provide unwanted programs. In California, where the bilingual education law expired in 1987, and each school district actually has the right to design its own program for language minority students, only 20 out of 1,000 school districts have succeeded in obtaining approval from the California Department of Education for ESL rather than native-language teaching programs. Teachers are so frustrated and disappointed with bilingual education in California that in May 1995 the California Teachers' Association-the first teachers' union in the country to do so-took the unprecedented action of publishing a long article highlighting the serious drawbacks of this program. Yet, in the past five years of writing and lecturing on education policy in this country and abroad, and as a consultant to various school districts on improving the education of language minority students, I am observing some very heartening developments. At the grassroots level-not in the universities or in the state education bureaucracies-individual teachers, school principals, school board members, and parents are opposing the continuation of bilingual education programs in their own locales and fighting for new approaches.

 The complaint is typically voiced in these terms: "We have been using native-language teaching for our limited-English kids for eight, 10, or 12 years, with bilingual teachers and textbooks, but it is working very poorly. Our students are not learning English for years, are not doing well in school subjects, they're segregated for too long, and they get discouraged and drop out of school in unacceptable numbers. We don’t begrudge the money for a special program, but we want something that works, and bilingual education is not it." One group of Latino parents in Brooklyn, N.Y., have even initiated a lawsuit against the New York State Commissioner of Education, complaining that their children are being kept in bilingual classrooms far too many years, are not learning English, and are suffering the consequences.

 Among the many appeals of this sort that I have responded to, there are a few representative examples worth describing.

 "A school principal in an elementary school in Lowell, Mass.,enlisted my help to retrain his teachers to focus on English-language teaching in the classroom and to substantiall reduce the amount of teaching in Spanish. Unfortunately, the district administration later disapproved of the new approach and made the school continue its bilingual program."

 "The Seattle, Washington, School District, which provides a variety of special programs for 6,000 limited-English students from 90 different language backgrounds, was sued by a group of activists demanding more native-language instruction. The district stood firm in its commitment to the intensive English focus of its programs. The district demonstrated the positive results in academic and social benefits for its students and was not forced to change its successful approach."

 "In 1993, the Bethlehem, Pa., Area School District decided to replace its 12-year-old Spanish bilingual program, which had produced unsatisfactory results, with an English Acquisition Program. Thanks to the fortitude of the school superintendent who faced up to some hostile activists from the Latino and education community, a team of professional staff members in the district were able to plan a new program, retrain staff, write a  new curriculum, and set an evaluation model in place to monitor student progress-this last item is too often a missing element in new programs. After two years with its English Acquisition Program, Bethlehem reports that it has discontinued busing limited-English students as they are now integrated in their neighborhood schools. A survey of parents and teachers also shows major support for the new effort."

 Beginning in 1996, data on student achievement are being collected for an annual report.

 "One teacher stands out among the hundreds who have called or written me after reading Forked Tongue. Most often, even tenured teachers tell me they do not speak out against bilingual education for fear of being labeled as racists. Yet Suzanne Guerrero is a moving and courageous exception. After 14 years as a Spanish bilingual teacher in the Salinas, Calif., public schools, she is convinced that the bilingual approach is not only ineffective but harmful to her students, and she has dared to publish her complaints.

 In an article she wrote for her local teachers' union newsletter, Guerrero said, "I am an American of Mexican heritage. Am I also a racist because I oppose bilingual education-after personally observing that it just is not working? Definitely not!...The sooner a child begins to learn a second language, the more rapidly and effectively he will acquire that language for social purposes and academic learning. Also, the human brain acquires language more easily the younger a child is. There is no sound reason to delay the learning of English."   One passionately hope that Guerrero's example will encourage others.

 Certainly, advances have been made in the public understanding of the plight of language-minority students in our schools, in the increased willingness of school districts to strike out in new directions, and in expanding the research base on educational alternatives. More is generally known about the myriad factors that affect second-language learning and academic achievement besides school programs-such as age, personality, motivation, family aspirations, culture, parents' educational level, family transience, and socioeconomic status.  Increasing numbers of educators understand that there will never be one school program that fits all language-minority children in all school districts. One wishes more politicians and ethnic activists understood this but "doing the right thing" politically is still the fashion.

 Sadly, the public dialogue is still heavily weighted toward the status quo-blindly loyal support for bilingual education. One small example makes the point. At a conference on "The Future of Bilingual Education" in the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., in September 1995, at which I presented this paper, it was expected that there would be speakers representing different viewpoints. Supporters and critics alike were invited to participate in panel discussions. Bilingual education advocates-Virginia Collier, Stephen Krashen, James Crawford, and others-turned down the invitation but chose to speak instead at the counterconference organized on the same day at an earlier hour by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the National Association for Bilingual Education. This provided no opportunity for the two camps to engage in civilized discourse. Unfortunately, this is the reality of the debate.

 From its inception, bilingual education has not embraced diversity of educational ideas but fostered fierce protection of a single dogma, a panacea that failed. I am more committed than ever to the ideas I first voiced in Forked Tongue in 1990. I have greater certainty in them today because what I learned in my early years in this field has been reinforced many times over.
 

Study Questions

What are the assumptions that are present regarding the purpose of the Bi-lingual educatonal program?

Why is there no mention of English speaking students learning another language?

What is your opinion?  What is the purpose of bi-lingul program?  Should assimilation be it’s main goal?

email your answers to me : bmori@calpoly.edu

About CEO. Publications. Staff. Comment. Racial Preferences.Url: http://www.ceousa.org/multic.html
 Immigration and Assimilation. Links.http://www.ceousa.or=g/multic.html

CEO conducts research into bilingual education and Afrocentric education. The following article is excerpted from our book The  Failure of Bilingual Education. Dr. Porter is Director of the READ Institute in Amherst, Ma. (413) 256-0034, and has recently release the second edition of her book Forked Tongue.
Another highly recommended book on bilingual education is by Dr. Christine Rossell. Bilingual Education in Massachusetts, has recently been published by the Pioneer Institute in Boston, Ma. (617) 723-2277.

Return to Soc 316 schedule