Need for Bilingual Education, Benefits of Bilingual Education - Literature review Example

Mayra Linares EN 102 Researched Argument The Bilingual Education Program: Indispensable and Necessary The Bilingual Education program is effectivein teaching English to students with limited English proficiency. It is a very necessary and indispensable part of the public education system. Therefore, it must not be abolished. By general definition, bilingual education is “the use of two different languages in classroom instruction” (Gale Encyclopedia of Children’s Health: Infancy through Adolescence). This paper, however, uses a more specific definition, which pertains primarily to the United States setting. Bilingual education, as referred to here, adopts the meaning provided by the paper ‘What Works for the Children? What We Know and Don’t Know About Bilingual Education’ by Harvard University, September 2002, which is “(1) Transitional bilingual education programs allow students to receive some instruction in language skills and on academic subjects in their primary language. As the students progress in English, the programs decrease the amount of instruction in their primary language with the goal of transitioning the students into general education classes as quickly as possible; (2) Dual language or two-way bilingual programs combine native English speaking students and ELLs with the goal of developing proficiency in both languages for both groups of students.” The United States public education system has been beset with much controversy on whether the bilingual education policy be abolished or not. It is a pressing issue, as the demographic landscape of the US continues to be that of rich diversity, with immigrants from practically all over the world continuously flocking to the US, resulting to the consequent rise in “minority” students population the US public schools. As stated in an article in University.com, “Bilingual Education - Need for Bilingual Education, Benefits of Bilingualism and Theoretical Foundations of Bilingual Education”, based on 2000 US Census data, there are more than 9.7 million children aged five to seventeen, or one out of six, who speak language other than English at home. It further states that the years 1990 to 2000 saw a dramatic increase in the population of language-minority children, increasing at 55%, in contrast to only 11% increase in the population of children from homes where only English is spoken. O’Dea, Patricia, 2001, in her CRS Report on ‘Bilingual Education: An Overview’, writes that “estimates indicate that there are over 3.4 million LEP students in the U.S. (Precise estimates of the LEP population are not available due to the lack of a standard definition of LEP.) Although concentrated in five states — California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois—LEP students are present in almost half of the nation’s school districts (46%). Approximately 7% of total K-12 enrollment across the country during the 1996-1997 school year was classified as LEP. Since the 1990-1991 school year, the size of the LEP population has increased an estimated 55%. In all, LEP pupils speak over 100 languages; however, Spanish is the most common native language, spoken by about three-fourths of all LEP children. A 1993 study of LEP children found that most LEP students are young—more than two out of three are in grades K-6, 18% are in grades 7-9, and 14% are in grades 10-12…”. Given the substantial, therefore far from negligible, number of population of non-native English speaking students, it is significant for the legislators and decision-makers of the US to look deeper into the issue, and have well-informed decisive stand on the issue. The Bilingual Education Act or BEA, initially created in 1968, was intended as a mere supplemental grant program aimed at assisting local school districts in teaching students who were not proficient or did not even have basic knowledge of English. Since then, the BEA has gone through amendments and has been extended several times, most recent of which was in 1994 through the Improving America’s Schools Act, P.L. 103-382. Primary reason to oppose the abolition of BEA from the US education system is that abolishing the BEA is discriminatory and is therefore against the law. Historically and politically, the passage of BEA is anchored on civil rights provided by the federal civil rights laws. Civil Rights Act, of 1964 provides for the prohibition of discrimination based on race, color and national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. Although in the said act, Limited English Proficient (LEP), or English Learners (ELs) or English Language Learners (ELLs) or individuals are not specifically referred to as protected class, subsequent court interpretations of it have included LEP students in the list of protected class. ELLs are facing very serious barriers to their obtaining the quality education they deserve. As their right to equal education and participation has been recognized by federal law through the BEA, it is upon every individual and group to respect it. In the context that the BEA was created, and the legal arguments leading to its reauthorization and extension since 1964, only proves that retaining and allowing the bilingual education program to continue is the best legal environment upholding what the United States stands for: equal rights and liberty for all. Reyes, Luis, as cited in an article in NYSUT News Wire, October 26, 2007, explains that bilingual education conveys a message of giving the children civil right to their home language, that language is not a hindrance to equal education. He further stressed that languages other than English should not be seen as problem, instead they should be regarded as resources. Learning a language, Reyes added, is easy “when it is sensible, relevant, interesting, belongs to the learner and is presented to the student through choices. Language becomes hard to learn when it is artificial, dull, broken into pieces, belongs to someone else and is out of the context of real communication”. In addition, elimination of bilingual education program is not only discriminating, it also deprives the students with limited English proficiency of an effective way of acquiring their much-needed English proficiency. The claim of advocates against BEA that it has been a dismal failure and therefore is a waste of state resources, is an unfounded truth. Krashen, Stephen and McField, Grace, in their write-up “What Works? Reviewing the Latest Evidence on Bilingual Education”, published in the Language Learner, November/December 2005, p. 7-34, provide a comprehensive review and analysis of the various research findings proving the effectiveness of the bilingual education program in America. Krashen and McField further stress that “study after study has reported that children in bilingual programs typically outperform their counterparts in all-English programs on tests of academic achievement in English”. In a May 8, 1998 issue of Time (for Kids), an article reports that even the then US Education Secretary Richard Riley does not favor the abolition of bilingual education. Commenting on the then proposed abolition of the program in California, Riley stated that doing so will cause a good number of children to have difficulty to cope, which will eventually lead them to fail. Further literatures disproving the failure of bilingual education in academically equipping LEP students are cited by Baker, Susan and Hakuta, Kenji (1997) in their paper “Bilingual Education and the Latino Civil Rights”. In the said paper, Baker and Hakuta cite two reports both from the National Research Council, that of Meyer &Fienberg, 1992 and of August & Hakuta, 1997, which claim that “all things being equal bilingual education programs produce slightly better results than English immersion programs on key outcome variables”. In the same paper, Baker and Hakuta report that a synthesis of case studies by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation in 1991 yield results supporting the effectiveness of well-implemented programs using native language as instruction medium. Further, researches on effective schools for language minority children show benefits and edge of bilingual education. Bilingual opponents, to further disprove bilingual effectiveness, point to a 10-year study by the U.S. Department of Education, which was published in 1991, and which reports to have found that students of bilingual programs fared better in English courses -- and in math and science as well -- than those in ESL programs. Goode, Stephen, in his article “Bilingual Barrier?” posted on August 7, 1995, cites associate director for policy and public affairs at the National Association for Bilingual Education in Washington Rick Lopez, who criticized such study reports, primarily because the study did not test students in all subjects, but rather only their English fluency. Goode quotes Lopez as saying, "It is a very narrow focus to test in English and nothing else -- and to judge on the basis of how fast English is taught". Opponents of bilingual education argue that with bilingual education, the immigrants remain isolated, limiting their exposure to the English language, and therefore they hardly learn English if at all. This is totally untrue. Contrary to such belief, the current generation of immigrants learn English much faster than those in the past. According to Crawford (1995), as cited by Baker & Hakuta, 1997, current linguistic assimilation occurs within two generations, in contrast to three generations in the early 1900s. Baker & Hakuta further explain that the Latino community assimilate English language the fastest among other languages. Another argument against bilingual education is that bilingualism confuses children, thus harming their intellectual development. This claim is largely based on results of researches in the early 19th century up to the 1960s which reported bilinguals as less intelligent than monolinguals. However, according to Baker & Hakuta (1997), the said studies used poor methodology, notwithstanding a vague if not problematic definition of intelligence, alongside the general failure to control factors as class, language proficiency and age. From that period henceforth, research on bilinguals have used more reliable and more sophisticated methodologies, which yield different results. Recent and more contemporary researches show that bilingualism does not necessarily need to have negative effects, rather may have positive effects on cognitive functioning. Several other arguments are offered to strengthen the case against bilingualism. However, it is apparent from the researches and studies that there are really no clear-cut education model that is most effective in teaching English to students with limited English proficiency. Results have been varied and therefore inconclusive. Works Cited Author Unknown, ‘Need for Bilingual Education, Benefits of Bilingual Education…’Bilingual Education - Need for Bilingual Education, Benefits of Bilingualism and Theoretical Foundations of Bilingual Education Baker, Susan and Hakuta, Kenji, 1997. Bilingual Education and Latino Civil Rights Stanford University High Beam Encyclopedia, ‘Bilingualism/Bilingual Education Education’, The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed accessed 10 Nov 2008, [http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-bilingEd.html] High beam encyclopedia, Infancy through Adolescence, Gale Encyclopedia of Childrens Health, accessed 10Nov2008,[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3447200083.html] Krashen, Stephen, University of Southern California and McField, Grace,California State University, San Marcos, ‘What Works? Reviewing the Latest Evidence on Bilingual Education’, Language Learner, November/December 2005, p. 7- 34 Accessed 10Nov 2008, [http://users.rcn.com/crawj/langpol/Krashen-McField.pdf] Reyes, Luis, ‘The benefits of bilingual education for English language learners’, as reported on NYSUT News Wire, October 26, 2007, accessed  10Nov 2008, [http://www.nysut.org/cps/rde/xchg/nysut/hs.xsl/endingthegap_8779.htm] Read More