Merits of Bilingual Education in the United States - Essay Example

Bilingual Education College Section number Controversy regarding the increasing numbers of Mexican immigrants into the United States has generated a great deal of discussion regarding the costs and merits of bilingual education. While states such as California and Texas may have a predominantly Spanish-speaking population entering their schools, it is always important to remember that bilingual education is not offered only to children of illegal immigrants from Mexico, but also to legal immigrants from numerous countries, including Mexico, who would otherwise have few resources in which to learn about their new home. The general term, bilingual education, refers to the practice of teaching regular school subjects in more than one language, making linkages between the native language (i.e. Spanish or Chinese) and the English language, which is predominant, but not yet official, in the United States. There are several ways of approaching the concept of bilingual education. These include a strictly transitional approach in which students are expected to integrate into a completely English-speaking classroom within a few years, a dual approach in which subjects are taught in more than one language with the goal being that English will be learned sooner without loss of subject knowledge and a developmental approach, in which students are taught in both languages for an extended period of time. While there are numerous arguments for continuing and expanding or perfecting bilingual education in America, there have also been as many arguments brought forward for discontinuing these services. Some of these arguments will be explored here. One argument against the concept of bilingual education can be found in the concept of a unified nation. It is argued that the United States can only be truly unified if it exists under a common language known by all residents as a means of facilitating communication. When bilingual education is offered, this argument stipulates, then individuals living within the United States who do not speak English have little to no incentive to learn English and therefore begin to reduce the national identity. Advocating bilingual education means also offering numerous government documents and services in dual languages as well, which is seen as a waste of money, time and effort all put towards reducing the cohesiveness and solidarity of the nation. This is the argument offered by Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of U.S. English, Inc. (cited in U.S. English, 2005). According to this argument, by having all official U.S. documents, directions, signs, legislation, etc. written in English only, those individuals who can speak English will be able to function within the borders of the country while those who do not will be forced to either return to their own countries or to learn English as a means of operating. By operating in this way, this argument indicates that individuals entering the United States will be forced to learn the language that will enable them to communicate with others either before or very soon after arriving while driving home the message that the United States is truly united under a common tongue. Rather than offering bilingual programs within the schools and encouraging immigrants to continue functioning within their native language with little to no English, it is argued that a total immersion program in English would be more effective in bringing children of immigrants into the United States’ way of life. According to ProEnglish (2007), English immersion programs work by removing the child from regular education coursework for the period of one year, completely immersing them in the task of learning English before offering instruction in their core subjects. Instead of lingering for years in a dual language program, these children are forced to learn English if they want to continue their education in the core areas that will be the building blocks to a more successful future as a United States citizen. Proof that the bilingual program doesn’t work is offered in the form of standardized test scores in which the authors of this report indicate bilingual students consistently and persistently score much lower than English-speaking students while proof that a total immersion program does work is similarly measured. Yet another argument brought against the concept of bilingual education is focused upon the expense of such programs. Increased demand for bilingual instructors and administrators unsurprisingly increased the cost of providing such experts while programs catering to a bilingual population necessarily required additional materials and equipment, further draining taxpayer dollars. According to Peter Duignan (2007), the case of Los Angeles provides a perfect example for this increase in cost. His research indicates that Los Angeles employed only two language consultants in the 1960s, each of whom were paid according to the same wage structure as regular teachers within the school district. However, after the bilingual education measures were taken in the 1970s, the city had found it necessary to hire 12 additional individuals, including three administrative positions, all of which were paid at a much higher rate than the ordinary classroom teacher. Auxiliary positions to this new aspect of education inevitably followed, eventually leading to the employment of political lobby groups, bilingual supervisors, counselors, teachers, textbooks, films, tapes and other teaching materials, all of which were priced at premium rates because of their multi-lingual status. This increased expense, coupled with reports that the system was a failure at providing students within the program with at least a comparable education to the monolingual instruction received in the regular education classroom, has been deemed more than wasteful. While it is acknowledged that there are more languages spoken in the United States today than there has been in the past, it is also reported by James Crawford (1998) that today’s immigrants are learning English at a much more rapid pace today partly as a result of the bilingual efforts that have been made. According to Crawford’s research, the number of immigrants who spoke non-English languages at home rose by 59 percent in the decade between 1980 and 1990, the number of immigrants who could speak English very well outside of the home also increased by 93 percent over the old figures. During his research, Crawford also discovered that most Hispanic immigrants have taken to speaking English on a daily basis after having been in the country for 15 years while 70 percent of their children become predominantly English speakers or even monolingual in English. A great deal of this credit for rapid English assimilation is given to successful bilingual programs that concentrate on providing students with the tools they need to make the language transition. These children are then able to go home and begin teaching their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles about the language of their new country, a country they risked everything to come to and a country that they desperately want to belong to. Rather than driving the nation apart, then, bilingual education is instead acting as a means of bringing it together on a consistent basis, ensuring that newcomers are given the education and tools they need to become a part of the nation rather than shunted off to isolated regions or inner city slums and doomed to eke out an existence that is perpetually at the mercy of the nation’s generosity. In terms of determining whether the bilingual programs are effective, Stephen Krashen (1991) indicates that there are several reasons for this general belief. The first of these is that many of the bilingual programs are mismanaged, which severely reduces their effectiveness. However, Krashen indicates that much of the research regarding whether these programs are effective is equally misrepresented. He points out several instances in which research studies are inexpertly reported yet still manage to indicate at least a slight advantage gained through the bilingual program as opposed to virtually every other type of program. When the programs are set up correctly, though, Krashen indicates that bilingual programs are able to outperform comparison students as well as perform well on national and state standards. Effective programs were identified as having several common characteristics, including high quality ESL classes, subject matter teaching in the first language and literacy development in the first language. First language instruction translates over into second language acquisition as well as making English acquisition efforts more comprehensible. Although studies into the actual expense of bilingual education are made quite difficult by the variety of services, personnel, scope of program, etc., attempts to study the issue have revealed that bilingual education costs are not necessarily as inflated as opposition groups tend to indicate. James Crawford (1997) indicates that many of the numbers reported regarding the cost of bilingual programs have been deliberately inflated in comparison with the number of students enrolled in the program. For example, he points out that the 1996 budget for bilingual education amounted to $128 million, which was a more than 51 percent reduction in funding from 1980 when it was $262.4 million despite the fact that there were more limited-English proficient students enrolled in 1996 than in 1980. As a result of such drastic budgetary shortfalls, many of the students who were tested are only enrolled in a limited bilingual program taught by uncertified teachers with inadequate resources, or they are not enrolled in the program at all. To test the effectiveness of the program in such conditions is hardly a test of the program itself as much as it is a proof of the inability of any program to be effective with less than half of what is required. Although the actual costs associated with bilingual programs are difficult to ascertain fully, it remains possible to demonstrate that these programs are less costly than the full pull-out programs of the ESL variety in which students are placed in isolation with each other in specialized classrooms which require their own set of space and maintenance requirements, course materials, instructors and administrators. “If [$12 billion] were the true cost, it would be a bargain. It would mean bilingual programs cost no more than ‘sink or swim’ approaches, while delivering far more effective instruction” (Crawford, 1997). It seems to me that there is far greater danger involved in eliminating the bilingual education programs from schools than in finding ways of making it work. Students who are provided with adequate, understanding education are able to grow up not only proficient in their native tongue, but also in the preferred language of the United States, while still fostering feelings of goodwill and gratitude toward this nation. Their bilingual status can assist with globalization efforts as well as with worldwide understanding and the education of future children. By learning how to communicate with the majority of the United States’ population, they will be integrated into the culture and help make the United States stronger and more unified because of the differences rather than suspicious and weak because of an insistence upon remaining true to a single idea or culture. The open-minded lessons that are taught through this mode of instruction will foster thinking skills that will be useful in addressing some of the more perplexing issues of the future and in coping with the consequences of actions that have been taken in the past. With proper funding and coordination, these programs have been proven to be very successful in teaching students English as well as their core subjects with a minimum of harm or isolation. And while these programs may cost money in order to be successful, the cost of failing these children or of setting up alternative programs that also tend to isolate them have proven to be much higher. References Crawford, James. (1997). “Babel in the Schools.” Available June 16, 2007 from Crawford, James. (November 1998). “Ten Common Fallacies About Bilingual Education.” National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Washington D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse. Available June 16, 2007 from Duignan, Peter. (2007). “Bilingual Education: A Critique.” Hoover Institution. Stanford Junior College. Available June 16, 2007 from Krashen, Stephen. (2000). “Bilingual Education: A Focus on Current Research.” Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education. N. 3. Springfield, VA: NCBE. Available June 16, 2007 from ProEnglish. (2007). “What is Bilingual Education?” Teach Our Children English. Arlington, VA: ProEnglish. Available June 16, 2007 from U.S. English. (2005). “U.S. Senate Votes to Make English the National Language.” Washington D.C.: U.S. English, Inc. Available June 16, 2007 from Read More