Why are mainstream bilingual education programs insufficient for emergent bilinguals? What can we do better, especially for preschool students who are at such an impressionable age?
Read the full 20-page report here!
Educating Emergent Bilinguals Equitably: Reject an English-Only Approach
The Picture of Educational Inequity
Currently, 1 in 10 American school students – about 5 million total – are English Language Learners. The vast majority of these emergent bilinguals – about 3.8 million – are native Spanish speakers. Mainstream classrooms and curricula are targeted toward monolingual English-speaking students, but these emergent bilingual students have a civil right to an equitable education that meets their needs.
Unfortunately, their educational track record has been rife with inequity. For instance, a majority of these students are highly concentrated in poor metro areas. Yet, in addition to achievement gaps typical in under-resourced schools in urban districts, the statistics on emergent bilingual performance are especially dire. According to the NAEP exam, 4% of emergent bilinguals were proficient in reading, and 6% in math. About 59% of Latino emergent bilinguals drop out of school, and 50% fail high school exit tests. Further, teachers at school with high language minority populations are less experienced overall, and these schools tend to have high rates of turnover. When all of the above factors combine to produce an emergent bilingual graduation rate only a fraction of the national average, it becomes clear that emergent bilinguals across the country are not receiving an equitable education.
Navigating the Policy and Pedagogy Landscape
Title VII of the 1968 Elementary and Secondary Education Act was termed the ‘Bilingual Education Act,’ and it set a federal goal of ‘assisting’ students with acquisitions of English. Reauthorizations of ESEA gradually shifted toward a more English-only approach, especially because the passage of No Child Left Behind increased the stakes for schools by requiring them to report the test scores of emergent bilinguals. However, no law mandates a specific instructional approach that schools must use.
Within this landscape, schools and districts around the country have taken a variety of approaches toward English language acquisition. On one end of the spectrum – ‘sink or swim’ – students are given no special instruction and are placed only in mainstream English classrooms. Students could also receive supplemental intensive English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction. On the other hand, ‘bilingual education’ allows students to receive some content instruction in their native languages.
Bilingual education has sparked many debates in the United States; on one side, proponents claim that instructing students in their native language shows a value of student language and culture and allows them to stay on grade-level with content, all while allowing them to acquire English. On the other hand, opponents believe that working with two languages at once can inhibit or delay English acquisition, and instead advocate that an English-only approach in which all classes are in English will fast-track acquisition. In short, the core of this debate asks: does bilingual education hurt or help?
A Step in the Wrong Direction
In November 2000, Arizona adopted its stance by passing Proposition 203 with 63% of the vote. According to the statute:
Children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English…through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year….Books and instructional materials are in English and all reading, writing, and subject matter are taught in English.
Under this law, students might receive minimal amounts of translation support in their first language, but all is geared toward English proficiency. Proposition 203 is a prime example of a policy that ignores linguistic research and exacerbates inequality due to lack of cultural relevance. Culturally relevant pedagogy focuses on assets that students bring to school and seeks to value their language, culture, and identity. If, instead, schools devalue emergent bilinguals’ language and culture and pressure them to assimilate, they will be perpetuating racism in education and cause these students to feel disconnected from school.
Proposition 203 perpetuates a deficit mindset regarding emergent bilinguals’ home culture; though English-only advocates claim that bilingual education would separate ELL students, slow their acquisition, and limit their chances at the ‘American Dream,’ they nonetheless implied that engaging with or in Spanish would lead to failure – that students’ language and culture were a detriment. Further, because Proposition 203 siphons emergent bilinguals into mainstream monolingual English classrooms, it in effect forces students to assimilate – thereby creating a sense of cultural disconnect and identity conflict. As a result, these emergent bilinguals may not only struggle, but also feel irrelevant and external to their own education. Students may in fact experience a “subtractive” education, wherein the longer they are enrolled in school, the more separated they feel from their families and cultures – taking away from their self-concept. This, in turn, decreases their investment and lowers academic achievement.
Contradicting the Research
Additionally, a large body of linguistic research supports bilingual education, and Proposition 203 ignores this science. For example, Krashen (1991) asserts that literacy skills transfer across languages, meaning that developing literacy in one’s home language directly helps literacy in a second language. Again, Riches & Genesee (2006) concur that increased proficiency in the native language increases academic achievement in a second language. Oller & Eilers (2002) found that by the 5th grade, emergent bilinguals in bilingual education programs had comparable English proficiency scores as those who had been in English immersion, and these students had also gained academic Spanish literacy. Yet, Proposition 203 mandates a ‘Sheltered English Instruction’ approach, which requires that students use only English materials and learn to read and write only in English, denying the opportunity to have the first language bolster the second.
Further, Proposition 203 also flouts research revealing that achieving full academic proficiency in English certainly takes longer than a one-year transition period. Indeed, it can take 5-7 years for a student to gain academic proficiency in a second language, it can take between 4 and 10 years to reach grade level. Thus, a one-year timeline is egregiously inequitable and does not set students up for success in mainstream classrooms. Accordingly, they may lack an opportunity to access an appropriately challenging, engaging curriculum and instead find themselves relegated to remedial coursework. This can also cause a ‘snowball’ effect in which students become further and further behind due to lack of grade-level instruction – a decidedly inequitable education. If proponents of English Only truly want emergent bilinguals to perform well and have an equitable education, one must wonder why they ignore this research.
Indeed, the results speak for themselves; 17 years later, emergent bilingual test scores in Arizona remain dismal. Arizona has the lowest emergent bilingual graduation rate in the nation – just 18%, which is well below the national average.
Further, the Center for Student Achievement analyzed scores from the AzMERIT – Arizona’s Common Core-aligned test, and found the alarming discrepancies shown in Figure 3. Clearly, something needs to change.
Setting Things Right
The research consensus recommends that the best-case scenario for Arizona’s emergent bilingual students is to rescind Proposition 203 and offer bilingual immersion for as long as possible – especially from an early age. In doing so, schools would reject a deficit approach and instead validate and encourage the linguistic and cultural capital that students possess. Students would receive grade-level content instruction, including the opportunity for advanced coursework – and therefore stay on track to graduate. Further, they would gain academic literacy in their home language – which then transfers to English – and experience the cognitive benefits of bilingualism.
References
- Batalova, J., Fix, M., & Murray, J. (2007). Measures of change: The demography and literacy of adolescent English learners: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute
- Center for Student Achievement (2016). Ever since Flores: The History of English language learners in Arizona. <http://centerforstudentachievement.org/ever-since-flores-the-history-of-english-language-learners-in-arizona/#_edn1>
- Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question, and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
- DeCohen, C.C., Deterding, N., & Chu Clewell, B. (2005). Who’s left behind? Immigrant children in high and low LEP schools. Washington, DC: Program for Evaluation and Equity Research. Urban Institute.
- Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic youth dropping out of U.S. schools: Measuring the challenge. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
- Garcia, O. & Kleifgen, J. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
- Gay, G. (2000). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 106-116.
- Hopstock, P.J., & Stephenson, T.G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. Special Topic Report #2: Analysis of Office of Civil Rights Data related to LEP students. OELA, U.S. Department of Education
- Krashen, S. (1991). Bilingual education: a focus on current research. Focus. 3. <http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED337034.pdf>
- Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
- Leonardo, Z. & Grubb, W.N. (2014). Education and racism: A primer on issues and dilemmas. New York, NY: Routledge
- Oller, D.K. & Eilers, R.E. (Eds.). (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children. Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.
- Riches, C. & Genesee, F. (2006). Cross-linguistic and cross-modal aspects of literacy development. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders & D. Christian, (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 64-108). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Sanchez, C. (2017). English language learners: How your state is doing. In NPR ed: 5 million voices. <http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/23/512451228/5-million-english-language-learners-a-vast-pool-of-talent-at-risk>
- Thomas, M. & & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, George Washington Unviersity, Center for the Study of Language and Education.
- Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
