Spring 1999, Volume XIV Number 2 Immigration: A Dialogue on Policy, Law, and Values Bilingual Education EDITORS: Let’s turn now to a domestic policy issue that is closely related to immigration. Bilingual education is a controversial public policy. Has this policy succeeded? What problems have arisen? Should this be a "long-term" or "short-term" policy? Is this a Spanish-English issue only? The U.S. Bureau of the Census projects that the current 14% Hispanic (K-12) school population will increase to 30% by the year 2050. What are the implications for our educational system and for our society? RACHEL MORAN: Until the late 1960s, bilingual education was not of great concern to policy makers. As the immigrant population began to grow after 1965, the question of how to ensure equal educational opportunity for non-English-proficient (NEP) and limited-English-proficient (LEP) students became an increasingly salient issue. Interestingly, though, the issues were framed as civil rights and pedagogical problems, rather than as an immigration-related concern. Bilingual education policy has been dogged by both ideological and pedagogical conflicts. Advocates of "official English" policy have argued that the U.S. can insist on assimilation without violating civil rights. Proponents of bilingual programs insist that they facilitate acquisition of English and that English-immersion programs are exclusionary. Meanwhile, researchers debate the efficacy of different approaches. The upshot of this controversy was a federal retreat in the 1980s from leadership in setting educational policy for NEP and LEP students. Concomitantly, federal funding for the programs dropped significantly. Meanwhile, states that received substantial numbers of immigrants faced a burgeoning population of nep and lep students in their public schools. At the same time, state and local agencies faced an array of other fiscal demands due to the need to integrate newcomers into their communities. Yet, the federal government offered little financial aid, despite the disparate demands on high immigrant-receiving states. As a result, the promise of the "new" federalism in bilingual education did not materialize. Innovation is unlikely to take place in conditions of scarcity. Instead, schools are apt to engage in triage simply to meet the most pressing student needs. The resulting sense of crisis and failure has led to high-profile controversy in California, a state that is particularly vulnerable to polarizing politics because of the legacy of populist influence. Fragmented government authority, weak political parties, and popular referenda, recalls, and initiatives all make for policy instability, even in areas less freighted with fears of racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic difference than bilingual education. DAVID REIMERS: Much of the debate on bilingual education depends upon the goals. If one assumes that the sole purpose is to have children learn English as fast as possible while not falling behind in academic work, then one can measure its success one way. However, if one assumes that the goal is to maintain one’s culture or language while also learning English and mastering subjects, then another measure will be used. Either way, there are plenty of studies, but alas they often have different results. A major problem for all of these programs, as others have pointed out, is that the burden of educating children falls on local communities that often lack resources. Indeed, even in communities where the will is strong, it is difficult to find qualified teachers with language skills. Bilingual education is not available for those with poor English. And many parents do not want their children in such programs, even though they might be eligible. The whole issue is a political minefield. My ideal would be to have all children master a language along with English, but that is not likely to happen. KAREN MUSALO: Bilingual education has become politicized, so that it is no longer a matter for educators to decide but has become all too often left to the electorate. I think that this is tragic, inappropriate, and wrong-headed. It results in decisions being made about education by people who are not educators, and who may be motivated by anti-immigrant sentiments and a fear of multiculturalism and diversity more than by a genuine concern for the best interests of the children. I am all too suspicious that many of the attacks on bilingual education are mounted by the same constituencies who have advocated for "English only" in one form or another. I wait and hope for the day when my fellow voters will delight in the fact that numerous languages are spoken in the U.S., rather than be fearful of this and attempt to stamp it out. PETER SCHUCK: I believe that several points about bilingual education policy are clear: (1) rapid assimilation of immigrants is an essential national interest, one that demands some English fluency; (2) this is, and has always been, primarily a problem for the first generation; (3) retention of the culture of origin is a valuable social resource and one that many, though not all, immigrants cherish, but pursuing it is the responsibility of parents; it is not a governmental responsibility, nor is government likely to do it well; (4) bilingual education policy should be decided not by politicians in Washington but by local communities responding to local needs; (5) in many communities, bilingual education has been politicized in ways that have little to do with immigrant children’s interests. As a result many, perhaps most, immigrant parents want no part of bilingual education and should not be compelled to enroll their children in it. The motivation to learn English is already very powerful, and even poorly educated parents can generally be relied on to decide what instruction their children need. I do not doubt that some opposition to bilingual education is, as Karen suggests, based on anti-immigrant sentiments. Still, there are many plausible, even compelling, reasons to doubt the effectiveness of bilingual education as currently administered in many places. We should not stigmatize opposition by calling it racist or nativist. SUSAN MARTIN: During the Commission on Immigration Reform, we held a number of consultations on English language acquisition. Unfortunately, much of the research is faulty (as a panel of the National Academy of Sciences also concluded) and as politicized as the debate on bilingual education. I concluded that there are factors far more important than the mode of instruction (bilingual, two-way, immersion, ESL, etc.) in determining whether programs are successful in helping kids learn English. Every mode of instruction has its successes and failures. One of the most important problems now is the absence of trained teachers who can teach any of the modes of instruction; some studies report a shortfall of 50%. A second problem is that many school districts have no way to measure whether students are progressing in either their language acquisition or their regular subjects. Often, limited English proficient students are exempt from any testing requirements. Third, there are some perverse incentives built into the system: school systems get money for keeping students in English acquisition programs, not for their success in getting the students to a point where they can be mainstreamed or become truly competent in two languages. Practices that do seem to help are regular evaluations of language acquisition, involvement of parents (something that can be difficult to accomplish if the parents don’t speak English), and community support for the language programs. MARK KRIKORIAN: Bilingual education is an issue that is largely diversionary. If immigration were reduced, there would be no educational problem to grapple with. If immigration isn’t reduced, it doesn’t much matter whether there’s bilingual education or not, since the burdens placed on local schools are only tangentially related, if at all, to the method of language instruction. The loudest opponents of bilingual education are also defenders of high levels of immigration (e.g., Ron Unz, Linda Chavez, John Miller); their opposition to bilingual education is an attempt to reconcile two opposing opinions. More broadly, "bilingual education" is often merely shorthand for the breakdown of Americanization in the public schools. It’s not just that American-born children of Latin American immigrants are being taught math in Spanish, but that they are not learning America’s history and songs and stories. Bilingual education of German kids in the 19th century wasn’t a particularly alarming problem, because they were also waving flags on the Fourth of July and memorizing the Gettysburg Address and the state capitals. Whether instruction is in English or Spanish, today’s school children are too often celebrating Cinco de Mayo and learning about marginal historical figures selected because of extraneous characteristics. This is not a question of how best to teach children English. CHRISTINA DECONCINI: To respond to Mark’s remarks on bilingual education: How does Latino children celebrating Cinco de Mayo differ from annual St. Patrick’s Day Parades? Is it equally disturbing? If not, why not? MARK KRIKORIAN: The celebration of Cinco de Mayo is not the problem. It’s the formal recognition of the holiday by the state, and the schools, that is a problem. I suspect that there was little state sanction for St. Patrick’s Day events, particularly in public schools, until well after the peak of Irish immigration. In other words, state recognition of St. Patrick’s Day "followed" wide public acceptance of it (i.e., "everybody’s Irish on March 17" and all that). Differences between the two holidays do exist, though. For example, Cinco de Mayo is a political holiday, celebrating a military victory, unlike the Feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe, which is more comparable to the religious holiday of St. Patrick’s Day. Also, Irish patriotism was popularly seen as complementary to American patriotism, since both were anti-British, at least nominally; on the other hand, if there is a bogeyman in Mexican nationalism, it is the United States. CHRISTINA DECONCINI: Having lived in Boston, I can speak about that one city’s response to St. Patrick’s Day. It is a state holiday in Massachusetts and referred to as "evacuation day" in honor of the day when the British were driven out of Boston, or to be precise out of Dorchester. It certainly has a political underpinning to it equal to that of Cinco de Mayo. The state government is closed that day, which makes it "official" in its recognition. St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston are filled with banners and signs supporting the IRA. There is a political flavor to the celebration and parade; "Irish Pride" T-shirts are sold. I suspect Chicago and other places with large Irish populations may have equally political recognition of this holiday. Stating that St. Patrick’s Day is a "religious" holiday when it is a recognized holiday by some state governments, is not a holy day of obligation in the Catholic Church, and marchers in parades celebrating it regularly advocate political agendas is a stretch. To differentiate it from the celebration of Cinco de Mayo on these terms is simply inaccurate. Spring 1999 Issue Home | American Values | Levels and Criteria | Congress and Courts Bilingual Education | The Future | The ABA & Immigration | Resources Contributors | Comments | Credits/Disclaimers Focus on Law Studies Home | Subscribe to Focus | Questions/Ordering Back Issues