Explore and Focus Your Cultural Lens
Debate: Continuing Bilingual Education
With the Supreme Court decision in the Lau v. Nichols case in 1974, English language learners came to the forefront in American education and were given a greater sense of legitimacy. Lau v. Nichols required schools to address the linguistic needs of their students from diverse backgrounds. It did not require bilingual education. However, there has been a proliferation of bilingual education programs throughout the country.
Over the past 45-plus years, the road for bilingual education has often been bumpy. Although some researchers continue to affirm its value, others conclude that while not harming students, bilingual education provides no particular advantage. Some critics have attacked it as a colossal failure and advocate for English immersion classes and the discontinuation of bilingual education. Under the George W. Bush administration, the name of the U.S. Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs was renamed the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA). Various quality bilingual education programs have clearly demonstrated that when administered with properly trained personnel, they can be highly effective for ELL students.
FOR
Our economy is now a global economy, and developing a multilingual citizenry through bilingual education will bring considerable advantages on the world stage.
Research by Cummins has clearly shown that ELL students cannot become proficient in English for academic purposes in the 1 year’s time proposed by proponents of sheltered English immersion programs. A well-developed bilingual program will enable the ELL student to become competent in cognitive academic language proficiency.
The problems with bilingual education are rooted in the lack of qualified personnel trained in bilingual education techniques, the lack of adequate resources, and the lack of commitment at both the federal and state levels. We need to prepare more individuals in bilingual education methodology and administration.
Research has clearly demonstrated that bilingual education, properly implemented, is highly effective.
AGAINST
In 1998, the year that California passed Proposition 227 limiting bilingual education, more than 400,000 of the state’s students began the school year as non-English proficient, and at the end of the school year, only 5% had learned English. This reinforces and justifies Proposition 227, which finally ended the failed bilingual education fiasco.
The 2016 Proposition 58 essentially overturned Proposition 227 and reinstated bilingual education. However, it is doomed to fail as the bilingual education supporters can’t even agree as to what bilingual education should be. Maintenance? Transitional? Immersion? Dual language?
Yes, we have a global economy, and it is advantageous for individuals to be multilingual. We don’t need bilingual programs for that. Want to learn Chinese? Take Chinese classes. Take Spanish classes as people have always done.
Proponents of bilingual education claim that the poor results of bilingual education is due to the lack of funding and the lack of appropriately trained bilingual education teachers. In the 20-plus years since the passage of Proposition 227, there are still claims of bilingual education teacher shortages. Twenty years from now there will be the same excuses.
Questions for Discussion
1. What should programmatic decisions (such as the type of program that should be offered for ELL) be based on?
2. Would we see the current level of criticism and resistance to bilingual education if the majority of students in these programs were not from Mexico and Central America?
3. Would you be more or less supportive of bilingual education if it was limited exclusively to dual language programs where half of the students in each class were from English-speaking backgrounds?
4. What has the research shown with respect to language acquisition and ELL?
