When schools provide children quality education in their primary language, they give them twothings:knowledge and literacy. The knowledge that children get through their first languagehelpsmake the English they hear and read more comprehensible. Literacy developed in theprimarylanguage transfers to the second language. The reason is simple: Because we learn to read byreading that is, by making sense of what is on the page (Smith, 1994) it is easier to learn to readina language we understand. Once we can read in one language, we can read in general.
The combination of first language subject matter teaching and literacy development thatcharacterizesgood bilingual programs indirectly but powerfully aids students as they strive for a third factoressentialto their success: English proficiency. Of course, we also want to teach in English directly, viahighquality English-as-a-second language (ESL) classes, and through sheltered subject matterteaching,where intermediate-level English language acquirers learn subject matter taught in English.
The best bilingual education programs include all of these characteristics: ESL instruction,shelteredsubject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language. Non-English-speaking childreninitiallyreceive core instruction in the primary language along with ESL instruction. As children growmoreproficient in English, they learn subjects using more contextualized language (e.g., math andscience) insheltered classes taught in English, and eventually in mainstream classes. In this way, theshelteredclasses function as a bridge between instruction in the first language and in the mainstream. Inadvancedlevels, the only subjects done in the first language are those demanding the most abstract use oflanguage (social studies and language arts). Once full mainstreaming is complete, advanced firstlanguage development is available as an option. Gradual exit plans, such as these, avoidproblems associated with exiting children too early (before the English they encounter iscomprehensible) and provide instruction in the first language where it is most needed. Theseplans alsoallow children to have the advantages of advanced first language development.
Rodriguez (1982) tells us that he succeeded in school without a special program and acquired averyhigh level of English literacy. He had two crucial advantages, however, that mostlimited-English-proficient (LEP) children do not have. First, he grew up in an English-speakingneighborhood in Sacramento, California, and thus got a great deal of informal comprehensibleinputfrom classmates. Many LEP children today encounter English only at school; they live inneighborhoodswhere Spanish prevails. In addition, Rodriguez became a voracious reader, which helped himacquireacademic language. Most LEP children have little access to books.
De la Peña (1991) reports that he came to the United States at age nine with noEnglishcompetence and claims that he succeeded without bilingual education. He reports that heacquiredEnglish rapidly, and "by the end of my first school year, I was among the top students." De laPeña,however, had the advantages of bilingual education: In Mexico, he was in the fifth grade, andwas thusliterate in Spanish and knew subject matter. In addition, when he started school in the UnitedStates hewas put back two grades. His superior knowledge of subject matter helped make the Englishinput heheard more comprehensible.
Children who arrive with a good education in their primary language have already gained two ofthethree objectives of a good bilingual education program literacy and subject matter knowledge.Theirsuccess is good evidence for bilingual education.
There is evidence that reading ability transfers from Chinese to English (Hoover, 1982), fromVietnamese to English (Cummins, Swain, Nakajima, Handscombe, Green, & Tran, 1984), fromJapanese to English (Cummins et al.), and from Turkish to Dutch (Verhoeven, 1991). In otherwords,those who read well in one language, read well in the second language (as long as length ofresidence inthe country is taken into account because of the first language loss that is common).
However, when respondents are simply asked whether or not they support bilingual education,thedegree of support is quite strong: From 60-99 percent of samples of parents and teachers say theysupport bilingual education (Krashen, 1996). In a series of studies, Shin (Shin, 1994; Shin &Gribbons,1996) examined attitudes toward the principles underlying bilingual education. Shin found thatmanyrespondents agree with the idea that the first language can be helpful in providing backgroundknowledge, most agree that literacy transfers across languages, and most support the principlesunderlying continuing bilingual education (economic and cognitive advantages).
The number of people opposed to bilingual education is probably even less than these resultssuggest;many people who say they are opposed to bilingual education are actually opposed to certainpractices(e.g., inappropriate placement of children) or are opposed to regulations connected to bilingualeducation (e.g., forcing teachers to acquire another language to keep their jobs).
Despite what is presented to the public in the national media, research has revealed much supportforbilingual education. McQuillan and Tse (in press) reviewed publications appearing between 1984and1994, and reported that 87 percent of academic publications supported bilingual education, butnewspaper and magazine opinion articles tended to be antibilingual education, with only 45percentsupporting bilingual education. One wonders what public support would look like if bilingualeducationwere more clearly defined in such articles and editorials.
On the other hand, a vast number of other studies have shown that bilingual education iseffective, withchildren in well-designed programs acquiring academic English at least as well and often betterthanchildren in all-English programs (Cummins, 1989; Krashen, 1996; Willig, 1985). Willigconcluded thatthe better the experimental design of the study, the more positive were the effects of bilingualeducation.
Limited-English-proficient Spanish-speaking children have little access to books at home (about22books per home for the entire family according to Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, & Pasta, 1991) or atschool(an average of one book in Spanish per Spanish-speaking child in some school libraries inschools withbilingual programs, according to Pucci, 1994). A book flood in both languages is clearly calledfor.Good bilingual programs have brought students to the 50th percentile on standardized tests ofEnglishreading by grade five (Burnham-Massey & Pina, 1990). But with a good supply of books in bothfirstand second languages, students can go far beyond the 50th percentile. It is possible that we mightthenhave the Lake Wobegon effect, where all of the children are above average, and we can finally doaway with the tests (and put the money saved to much better use).
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: CaliforniaAssociationfor Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D., & Tran, C. (1984).Linguisticinterdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In C. Rivera (Ed.),Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research andapplication, pp. 60-81. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. (ERIC DocumentReproductionService No. ED 249 793)
de la Peña, F. (1991). Democracy or Babel? The case for official English in the UnitedStates.Washington, DC: U.S. English.
Gersten, R. (1985). Structured immersion for language-minority students: Results of alongitudinalevaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 187-196.
Hoover, W. (1982). Language and literacy learning in bilingual education: Preliminaryreport.Cantanese site analytic study. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.(ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 245 572)
Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA:Language Education Associates.
McQuillan, J., & Tse, L. (in press). Does research matter? An analysis of media opinion onbilingualeducation, 1984-1994. Bilingual Research Journal.
Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics of bilingual education. New York:BasicBooks.
Pucci, S. L. (1994). Supporting Spanish language literacy: Latino children and free readingresources inschools. Bilingual Research Journal, 18(1-2), 67-82.
Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S., Ramey, D., & Pasta, D. (1991). Longitudinal study of structuredEnglishimmersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit bilingual education programs for language-minoritychildren(Final Report, Vols. 1 & 2). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 330 216)
Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez. Anautobiography. Boston: D. R. Godine.
Rossell, C., & Baker, R. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education.Research inthe Teaching of English, 30(1), 7-74.
Shin, F. (1994). Attitudes of Korean parents toward bilingual education. BEOutreachNewsletter,California State Department of Education, 5(2), pp. 47-48.
Shin, F., & Gribbons, B. (1996). Hispanic parents' perceptions and attitudes of bilingualeducation.Journal of Mexican-American Educators, 16-22.
Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learningto read(5th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Verhoeven, L. (1991). Acquisition of literacy. Association Internationale de LinguistiqueAppliquee(AILA) Review, 8 61-74.
Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education.Review of Educational Research, 55, 269-316.
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research andImprovement,U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. RR93002012. The opinions expressed hereindo notnecessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, the Department, or AEL.
Send e-mail and suggestions to jboulet@englishfirst.org
English First, 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 tel: (703) 321-8818 fax: (703) 321-8408 Internet: http://www.englishfirst.org