The Effectiveness of Bilingual Education in K-12 Setting - Essay Example

The Effectiveness of Bilingual Education in K-12 Setting Bilingual Education Curriculum Background In 1900, Kloss (1998) reported there were about 600,000 elementary school children instructed either in part or in whole in German and no legislation aided English to survive. There are more languages spoken in the United States today (Crawford, 1998) with English growing to become the global language. In fact, between 1980 and 1990, there were about 59% immigrants who did not speak English and 93% of this portion rose to spoke English very well (Waggoner, 1995). In June 1998, voters in California were asked to consider initiatives to ban the use of foreign languages in the instruction of younger children with limited English proficiency that added sparks to the already controversial issue. It is then necessary to lay down the reasons why despite several convincing arguments on the effectiveness of bilingual education, the arguments and debates continue. And to shed light on the cloudy controversy, Crawford (1998) presented the ten misconceptions or common fallacies about bilingual education as follows: 1. English is losing ground to other languages in the United States. More of a panic view than an empirical one, Crawford (1998) acknowledged that there are more world languages spoken in the US now more than ever but quantitative, he argued and not a qualitative change from earlier periods. He pointedly added the concentrations of non-English language speakers common in the 19th century provided for by laws authorizing native language instruction in several states and territories. Children in big cities and rural areas attended bilingual and non-English schools with a diversity of French, Norwegian, Czech or Cherokee while "English survived without any help from government such as official-language legislation," (Crawford, 1998). 2. Newcomers to the United States are learning English more slowly now than in previous generations. Another unfounded belief, Crawford (1998) argued that recent immigrants "appear to be acquiring English more rapidly than ever before" while minority language speakers grow, bilinguals fluent in both native and English language "is growing even faster. Waggoner (1995) reported that between 1980 and 1990, the number of immigrants who spoke non-English languages at home increased by 59%, while the portion of this population that spoke English very well rose by 93% . Likewise, Crawford (1998) added that only 3 percent of US residents reported speaking English less (as compared to well and very well) while only a very insignificant portion spoke no English at all. Also, Veltman (1998) found that about 3 in 4 Hispanic immigrants were reportedly able to speak English on a daily basis after 15 years of residency, and that 70 percent of their children became monolingual English speakers 3. The best way to learn a language is through total immersion. Rodriguez (1982) and de la Pea (1991) were often cited to have "succeeded in school without a special program and acquired a very high level of English literacy," (Krashen, 1997) but it was found out, both had substantial advantages. Rodriguez grew up in an English-Speaking neighborhood in Sacramento, California instrumental in his informal immersion from classmates while de la Pea had the bilingual education advantage in Mexico until fifth grade, and was placed two grades backwards in his schooling in the United States. Crawford (1998) further argued "there is no credible evidence to support the "time on task" theory of language learning-- the claim that the more children are exposed to English, the more English they will learn" emphasizing quality over quantity of exposure while Krashen (1996) pointed out that second language input must also be comprehensible to promote second language acquisition. Crawford (1998) added that children left alone to learn on their own in an all-English classroom setting with little or without help via native lessons, English learning will be of little use. And that native instruction will make learning meaningful and English becomes easier to understand. 4. Children learning English are retained too long in bilingual classrooms, at the expense of English acquisition. A well-designed program was introduced as alternative in this instance while it argues that literacy could be transferable to English which is second language. Krashen (1996) added that English will need no reintroduction and that limited English proficiency (LEP) need not be rushed into the mainstream. This argument is backed by two decades of research determined that children takes longer time to attain full proficiency in a second language. Conversational English according to Collier and Thomas (1989) may be acquired easier but cognitive and academic learning demands more time. Gradual transition programs of bilingual education served in declining order over time will bridge children's cognitive growth and serves as a foundation for academic pursuits in the second language. Cummins (1992) emphasized that quick-exit programs from bilingual towards English interrupts growth at crucial stage and have negative effects to the learner. 5. School districts provide bilingual instruction in scores of native languages. Shortage of qualified bilingual teachers and instructional materials make it difficult to allow bilingual programs. CDE (1995) cited as an example when California in 1994 enrolled immigrants from 136 different countries with only 17 certified bilingual teachers, of which 96 percent are Spanish. 6. Bilingual education means instructions mainly in students' native languages, with little instruction in English. Prior to 1994, the majority of US bilingual education were designed for early exit to mainstream English language classrooms with a small fraction designed for maintenance of bilingual programs. Crawford (1998) reported that, "Today, a majority of bilingual programs continue to deliver a substantial portion of the curriculum in English." He also cited one study of school districts with 28 percent of LEP elementary school students receiving no native-language instruction. A third receive more than 75 percent of their instruction in English, another third received from 40-75 % in English, and another third received less than 40 percent in English. Hopstock et al (1993) added that secondary school students are less likely to be instructed in their native language than elementary school students. 7. Bilingual education is far more costly than English language instruction. There is an acknowledged additional cost for additional staff training, instructional materials, and administration for bilingual programs than native English speakers but considered modest in most cases (Crawford, 1998). A California legislature study found that incremental cost was about the same at $175-$214 for each year both for bilingual and English-immersion program while English as second language (ESL) pull-out programs require $1,198. Chambers and Parrish (1992) explained that the pullout approach required supplemental teachers, and the in-class approach did not. ESL pullout remained the method of choice in most school districts due to the short supply of bilingual teachers and expertise. 8. Disproportionate dropout rates for Hispanic students demonstrate the failure of bilingual education. Crawford (1998) contended that no credible studies have actually identified bilingual education as among the risk factors in a citation of Lockwood (1996) identifying multiple factors associated to the high rate of Hispanic dropouts that include: recent arrival in the US, family poverty, limited English proficiency, low academic achievement, and being retained in grade. 9. Research is 9inconclusive on the benefits of bilingual education. Acknowledged anti-bilingual Rossell and Baker (1996) in reviewing 300 such studies accepted only 72 for methodological standards and determined that only 22 percent supported the superiority of transitional programs over English-only instruction in reading, 9 percent in math, and 7 percent in language and added "TBE or transitional bilingual education is never better than structured immersion." But Krashen (1996) argued that Rossell and Baker relied mostly on 1970s evaluations and had biased narrative approach. 10. Language-minority parents do not support bilingual education because they feel it is more important for their children to learn English than to maintain the native language. Crawford (1998) argued that "Truly bilingual programs seek to cultivate proficiency in both tongues, and research has shown that students' native language can be maintained and developed at no cost to English. Krashen (1996) acknowledged that another poll on the principles underlying bilingual education that developing literacy in the first language facilitates literacy development in English or that bilingualism offers cognitive and career-related advantages, majority of parents favored. Greene (1998) likewise adopted the meta-analysis approach on the effectiveness of bilingual education and found out that "children with limited English proficiency who are taught using at least some of their native language perform significantly better on standardized tests than similar children who are taught only in English." He added that "Students in bilingual programs receive the equivalent of roughly three additional months of learning over a two-year period compared to similar students in English-only programs." He also gave emphasis on the Ann Willig study in 1985 which is "still true today: the evidence that is available suggests that native language instruction has a significant, positive impact on the children learning English." In Greene's (1998) research, he acknowledged that "the only way to evaluate whether the use of any native language instruction is harmful or helpful is to compare students who receive any bilingual instruction to those who are taught only in English." He concluded that "Despite the relatively small number of studies, the strength and consistency of these results, especially from the highest quality randomized experiments, increase confidence in the conclusion that bilingual programs are effective at increasing standardized test scores measured in English [] native language instruction is useful." Various Teaching Methods for LEP Students: Immersion - Teachers use simple language tailored to allow students to absorb English while learning academic subjects. Transitional - bilingual education that allows students some instructions in their native language simultaneous with concentrated English-language instruction. Students gradually exit from bilingual programs to mainstream English programs. Developmental - bilingual education is built on students' skills in their native language as they learn English as a second language. The United States Department of Education's Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs stressed the "knowledge-based principles" that: 1. All children are capable of engaging in complex thinking tasks 2. Developing and maintaining the student's native language do not interfere with English language acquisition. Cromwell (1998) pointed out that "research over the last decade in bilingual classrooms with established models of instruction al excellence indicates that utilization of and facility in the primary language enhances the acquisition of a second language." Discussion 1. How are these English language learners assessed and expected to progress English language learners are assessed through continuous research by academics and educators as each approach to LEP students' education are evaluated and re-evaluated from time to time. Since there is a continuous influx of immigrants from various countries to the United States year after year, concerns on the proper education of non-English speakers to become useful citizens are a debate in the legislation and among political and governmental leaders. Cosmopolitanism is a widely accepted notion among co-inhabitants in most major cities or even rural areas of the United States. They are coming from various nations, with unique and differing traditions, cultures, ways of life, and language so that a great political and social concern for their education is a crucial federal and state concerns. As methods are also evaluated, improved and designed growing more sophisticated and well-structured over time, there is a positive development on bilingual education assessment and progress with all sectors from the government, education and private doing their share for this academic pursuit. For the meantime, with Developmental bilingual education having the most positive effect among the various LEP approaches, it is necessary to apply structured design for the adoption of this approach. 2. What is the accountability of the school with respect to "No Child Left Behind" and these students The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) is based on the four pillars accountability, flexibility, scientifically-based research, and options for parents. It is also "the reauthorization of a number of federal programs that strive to improve the performance of America's primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend." The school, with their own state legislation as patterned from the federal law, had to adhere to NCLB requiring all children to be assessed each year to find out whether or not these learners show adequate yearly progress in both reading and mathematics. They are required to examine and evaluate at least 95 percent of the various subgroups of children as follows: School as a whole White Black Hispanic Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Multiracial Economically Disadvantaged Students Limited English Proficient Students Students with Disabilities. 3. What is the overall impact on the school Driscoll (2003) wrote that NCLB requires that schools, "both Title I and non-Title I, that have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two consecutive years, develop a School Improvement Plan that sets forth concrete actions for improving student achievement. A charter school that has not made AYP for two consecutive years should review the necessary components of the School Improvement Plan to align its requirements with the documents already guiding the school's academic and non-academic programs, in particular the school's charter and accountability plan. The purpose of the School Improvement Plan is to establish annual, measurable goals and overall improvement objectives (related especially to achievement of AYP), analyze why the school has not yet achieved its goals, and describe what strategies the school will use to improve performance. Most of the elements required in the School Improvement Plan should already be included in the charter school's accountability plan and annual reports on the school's progress toward meeting its goals. While a separate document may be needed to articulate clearly every point in the School Improvement Plan, a charter school should not view this document as distinct and unconnected to the goals and objectives outlined in its accountability plan. Doing so could create confusion over what the school intends to do for students. Rather, there should be a clear connection between these guiding documents that leads to increased academic achievement." In a study conducted by Cronin et al (2005), it found out that: Mathematics and reading scores have improved over the past two years under NCLB. Students growth scores have decreased since NCLB was implemented. Students in grades with state tests have higher achievement growth than students who are not. Changes in performance in mathematics are greater than those in reading since NCLB was implemented. Studies in this area that use lower-stakes assessments to measure improvements in learning may have a greater percentage of unmotivated students. Students growth in every ethnic group has decreased slightly since NCLB was implemented. Growth of Hispanic students in every grade and subject area tends to be lower than the growth of Anglo students with exactly the same initial score. The study added that its findings are only a snapshot and close scrutiny is warranted to determine the political idea's impact as a good educational practice. Additional finding indicate: - State-level tests tend to improve observed achievement on an independent measure, and therefore, increasing the number of grades in which state tests are given may improve achievement more. - There is evidence that NCLB has improved student achievement since its adoption (although this effect is much smaller than the testing effect) (Cronin et al, 2005). Likewise, the study also indicated two of the worrisome elements as: - If change in achievement of the magnitude seen so far continues, it won't bring schools close to the requirement of 100 percent proficiency by 2014. - Students in ethnic groups that have shown achievement gaps in the past grow less under NCLB, and may grow less than comparable Anglo students (Cronin et al, 2005). Driscoll (2003) added that "The passage of NCLB marked a new level of accountability for all public schools, including charter schools. Its passage, however, does not diminish the responsibility of charter school authorizers to hold charter schools accountable. Section 1111(b)(2)(K) of NCLB (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(K)) and Section 200.49(f) of the final federal Title I regulations require that accountability for charter schools be overseen in accordance with state charter school law. In accordance with federal and state laws, the (Massachusetts) Board of Education will continue its oversight of (Massachusetts) charter schools. Collectively, the MA Board of Education and MA Department of Education provide the oversight required by NCLB and the charter school accountability system." Rueter (2005) strongly opposed to No Child Left Behind Act, called it "a massive federal intrusion that impedes learning, encourages dropouts, narrows the curriculum, increases anxiety, fosters academic dishonesty, and does nothing to improve schools[]What's wrong with testing, testing, testing Plenty. First, annual high-stakes testing impedes learning. It produces rotememorization and a "drill and grill" curriculum. Between pre-testing and the actual testing, students may be involved in 3 to 4 weeks of test-related activities distinct from normal instruction []Also, high-stakes testing encourages school dropouts. In Massachusetts in 2003, almost twenty percent of high school seniors did not pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment to receive their high school diplomas--including 44 percent of the state's black seniors and half its Hispanic seniors. Students who feel they cannot pass the test--despite repeated attempts--see no reason to stay in school []The No Child Left Behind Act alsorestricts the curriculum. It produces a narrow focus on math and reading test scores. Schools desperate to improve their test scores areeliminating courses in art, music, speech, debate, home economics, industrial arts, history, social studies, and physical education--as well as recess. In addition, the Act narrows the range of performance-based accountability" Conclusion: There may be a lot of positive effect of well-structured bilingual education programs for both the LEP students, the K-12 school, and for NCLB. NCLB's aim is quite noble and ideal but coming from the point of view of educators, both teachers and administrators, ideal political implementation and classroom do not always go together. Teaching is an entirely separate entity and although accountability makes the educators more responsible and pro-active towards achieving ideal targets, the process may impede a qualitative approach to education. In most manners, it can be argued that quality is the main target in implementing first--- the NCLB, and second, the well-structured developmental bilingual education. The aim is to have better students produced from the schools but tests, although a valuable tool in evaluating process, could turn negative when given in excess, considering the duress or pressure each student undergoes prior to the exams. And this can be only known by teachers and administrators, but never, or rarely, could be considered by politicians. Reference: Cromwell, Sharon. "The Bilingual Education Debate: Part I." Education World. 1998. Cronin, John, Gage Kingsbury, Martha McCall and Branin Bowe. "The Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on Student Achievement and Growth: 2005 Edition". Northwest Evaluation Association. 2005. Cummins, J. Empowering minority students. California Association for Bilingual Education. 1989. De la Pea, F. Democracy or Babel The Case for Official English in the United States. Washington D.C. 1991. Driscoll, David. "Charter School Technical Advisory 03-2: The Impact of NCLB on Massachusetts Charter Schools." Massachusetts Charter Schools. July 2, 2003. Greene, Jay. "A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education." The Thomas Rivera Policy Institute, 1998. Hoover, W. Language and literacy learning in bilingual education: Preliminary report. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Howard, Elizabeth. "How Effective is Bilingual Education." Center for Applied Linguistics. 1999. Krashen, S. "Under attack: the case against bilingual education." Language Education Associates. 1996. Ramirez, David, David Pasta, Sandra Yuen, David Billings, and Dena Ramey. Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structural Immersion Strategy, Early Exit, and Late Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority Children. Aguirre International. 1991. Rodriguez, R. Hunger of memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez. An autobiography. D.R. Godine. 1982. Rossell, Christine and Baker, R. The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education." Research in the Teaching of English. 1996. Rueter, Ted. "Disastrous" No Child Left Behind Act Should Be Repealed." DePauw University. Herald Times. September 9, 2005. Willig A. A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education." Review of Educational Research. 1985. Read More