1. Bilingual Educational Programs:
A Synthesis on Effectiveness for English Language Learners
Introduction
Bilingual education has been a popular topic in the educational realm for nearly the past thirty
years, and the need to understand its implications only grows as the world becomes further
globalized and more people migrate to countries where their L1 is not spoken. Although this
phenomenon is happening all over the world, this particular review will take a focused look at
how schools are handling this influx within their designated programs for English language
learners in North America.
It is important to begin with some definitions, so as to clarify the terminology that will be
employed throughout this review. At its bear bones, bilingual education “refers to an organized
and planned program that uses two (or more) languages of instruction” (Cummins, 2009, p.
161). Underneath that umbrella exits a plethora of programs, some that use a high percentage of
the students’ native language, while on the opposite end, some that use students’ L1 very
scarcely. Regardless of the percentage used, to be categorized under the umbrella of bilingual
education only requires that two languages are utilized in academic instruction. In most cases,
within the U.S., bilingual education is aimed at native Spanish-speaking populations. However,
this minority is certainly not the only one that has educational programs to assist in the English-
learning process, as some of the studies reviewed will demonstrate. The contrasting method,
commonly adopted by many schools, would be that of monolingual instruction. Here, we will

2. simply define monolingual education to be a program in which there is only one employed
language of instruction, and non-native students’ L1s are acknowledged minimally, if at all.
Within this category, programs such as English-as-a-second-language and immersion serve as
popular models that schools use in order to educate English language learners.
The shapes and forms of these programs vary from school to school. Names that these various
programs usually take are as follows: transitional bilingual, maintenance bilingual, English-as-a-
second-language, immersion, sheltered English, and submersion (Altarriba, 2008).
While each program may be different from the next, this review lends itself to give rise to a
specific question about bilingual education: is it superior to monolingual education in terms of
overall academic development of English language learners? The following review presents
studies that, however varied in nature, take a hard look at how English-learning students are
fairing in bilingual and monolingual programs across the nation. Of course, this will concern
only a comparison of bilingual students to bilingual students, meaning results of English
language learners participating in bilingual education programs will be paralleled to those of
English language learners in monolingual programs: nothing more, nothing less. It is crucial to
point out, as well, that this review does not rank bilingual programs by superiority, nor does it
enter into ideal length of time to be enrolled in a bilingual program. Additionally, it is important
to note that the following literature does not involve effects on students who speak neither the
academic language nor the majority minority language, which is being used in instruction in
bilingual programs. This review solely acknowledges learners who speak a collective L1, which
is utilized in the bilingual classroom, and are learning to speak the academic language. In

3. synthesizing these findings, the aim is to present a clearer idea of which approach is more
effective for said learners.
Twenty-Seven Years of Debate
Perhaps one of the most important dates when considering the discord surrounding bilingual
education would be June 1988, during which the state of California declared its passage of
Proposition 227. This proposition sought to eliminate the use of bilingual children’s L1 for
purposes of instruction, except in very exceptional circumstances. The passage of such a law has
caused a great deal of controversy concerning bilingual education (or the lack thereof), and
schools nationwide have followed suit in eliminating their bilingual education programs with the
ultimate goal of immersing English language learners into a monolingual program. Although
substantial empirical evidence is available to prove the legitimacy in effectiveness of bilingual
programs for English language learners, there is still an ever-growing push for immersion
programs.
Rossell and Baker, 1996
In one of the most cited literature reviews by opponents to bilingual education, Rossel and Baker
(1996) analyzed 72 different programs throughout the U.S. and Canada. Their argument is
founded on a claim suggesting that students enrolled in monolingual programs (Canadian French
immersion programs in kindergarten and grade 1) nearly achieve grade norms while the program
is monolingual in L2, but the same students start to decline in performance in comparison to

4. native speakers when the program becomes bilingual in later grades. The data show exactly the
opposite, according to Cummins (n.d.), who suggests that
“there are major gaps between immersion students and native French speakers after the
initial two years of monolingual L2 instruction but students catch up with native speakers
in receptive skills after instruction in their L1 (English) is introduced and the program has
become fully bilingual.”
Many other researchers, like Cummins, have tried to shoot holes in Rossell and Baker’s
argument, due to the bold claims that they make, some of which seem to be miscalculated or
even misconstrued. Greene (1998), in an attempt to refine Rossell and Baker’s results in order to
test their claim, produced his own meta-analysis over their famous 1996 study. He used a small
portion of the total studies, of which met the highly selective criterion for his own analysis of
true bilingual programs. In efforts to avoid using seriously flawed studies included in Rossell and
Baker’s original review, his requirements dwindled the list down to 11 studies. In reference to
this immense narrowing of studies, he provides the following statement:
“Despite the relatively small number of studies, the strength and consistency of these
results, especially from the highest quality randomized experiments, increases confidence
in the conclusion that bilingual programs are effective at increasing standardized test
scores measured in English.”
The findings from Greene’s analysis yielded results that lead us to believe that the picture
painted by Rossell and Baker about the ineffectiveness of bilingual programs is perhaps not as
clear as it was originally thought to be. Greene’s review demonstrated a positive effect size for

5. areas of English, reading, math and Spanish for students in bilingual programs, meaning their
performance was superior to that of their classmates’ enrolled in monolingual programs.
What Current Studies Suggest
Additional studies conducted since Rossell and Baker’s 1996 review have resulted in findings
similar to Cummins’ and Greene’s. Calderon, et al. (2011) claims that quality education comes
by respecting and incorporating students’ native language. While that might not be sufficient
justification on academic grounds, their study also provides substantial evidence showing that
Texas students in cooperative learning programs (transitional-bilingual programs) scored higher
on measures of English language skills, as well as native-language skills, in comparison to those
students with English-only instruction. Furhtermore, Rolstad et al. (2005) produced a meta-
analysis in Arizona, which showed positive effects on all measures of language development.
According to their review, despite definitions of bilingual educational programs varying from
researcher to researcher, past research still shows a positive correlation between bilingual
education and higher test scores in comparison to monolingual program counterparts. Finally, in
a study conducted by Uchikoshi et al. (2010), it was suggested that, after assessing language in a
variety of measures on English language learners, both in English and their respective native-
tongue (Spanish or Cantonese), the evidence points to bilingual instruction as beneficial to
overall learning. An assessment of test scores on English reading comprehension and decoding
showed that these students, on average, did as well, and in some cases, better, than their
classmates attending class in a monolingual setting in which the instruction was only English.

6. Understanding the Pushback
After a careful consideration of the studies produced in the last two decades, the empirical
evidence seems to be undeniable: bilingual education is statistically more effective in spurring
superior academic performance when compared to monolingual education. It is this fact that
requires us to further examine the fight against bilingual education. Cummins (2009), in attempt
to explain the debacle, suggests that concerns over bilingual education are usually fueled over
ideological matter rather than pedagogical. The use of a language as a medium of education
confers recognition, status and economic benefits for speakers of that language. Whether or not
the push for monolingual education stems from the unwillingness of those in society to
acknowledge other languages of students in their schools is unclear. What does seem to be a
logical explanation for such pushback, however, is that the battle over bilingual education has
become a sociopolitical issue in which the competition between social groups for linguistic
dominance is often times more important than empirical implications.
Conclusion
If the answer to the original question of which program type is more academically effective for
English language learners is relatively easy to see by considering substantial, current evidence,
such as the results discussed previously, it then becomes much more difficult to understand the
growing trend of schools leaving behind their bilingual education programs. Knowing that
opponents to bilingual education cannot presently be swayed on empirical grounds, we must
therefore consider how to overcome social barriers that impede on the academic progress of

7. students being forced into monolingual programs, who would otherwise be performing at a
higher level if they were enrolled in a bilingual program. It is, perhaps, only by removing such
obstacles that the superiority and beneficial characteristics of bilingual educational programs
prove crystal clear and widely lauded.

8. References
Altarriba, J., & Heredia, R. (2008). An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes
(1st ed.). New York, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective Instruction for English Learners.
Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
Cummins, J. (n.d.). Rossell and Baker: Their Case for the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education.
Retrieved December 16, 2015, from www.iteachilearn.org/cummins/rossellbaker.html
Cummins, J. (2009). 10 Bilingual and Immersion Programs. The handbook of language teaching,
161-181
Greene, J. (1998). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Retrieved
December 16, 2015, from http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/greene.htm
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K. S., & Glass, G. V. (2005). Weighing the Evidence: A Meta-Analysis
of Bilingual Education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 43-67.
Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education.
Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7-74.
Uchikoshi, Y., & Maniates, H. (2010). How Does Bilingual Instruction Enhance English
Achievement? A Mixed-Methods Study of Cantonese-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking
Bilingual Classrooms. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(3), 364-385.