This document provides an overview of bilingual education in the United States. It discusses the history of bilingual education policy from the colonial period to present day, highlighting key events like the English-only movement in California in the late 20th century. It also summarizes several major national evaluation studies of bilingual education programs. The document examines theories about language acquisition and an influential long-term study on program effectiveness. It concludes by describing the characteristics of effective bilingual education programs and the two-way bilingual education model.

1. Bilingual education in the United States: the history, evaluation,
and evolution of bilingual education policy and programs for
Limited-English Proficient children
Jillian Tompkins
MEI 2010
Trabajo fin de master
Universidad de Navarra
Director: Dr. Ruth Breeze

2. Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................................3
1. What is bilingual education?..........................................................................................4
1.1. Bilingual education program models......................................................................5
1.2 The problem with labels..........................................................................................6
2. The history of bilingual education in the United States.................................................6
2.1 Precolonial times through mid-19th century...........................................................7
2.2. Late 19th century through early 20th century.........................................................7
2.3 Mid 20th century through present............................................................................9
2.4 Proposition 227 and the English-only movement in California............................14
3. National evaluation studies...........................................................................................15
3.1 The AIR report.......................................................................................................15
3.2 The National Longitudinal Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Services for
Language Minority Limited English Proficient Students (“The Longitudinal Study”)
.....................................................................................................................................16
3.3 Longitudinal Study of Immersion and Dual Language Instructional Programs for
Language Minority Students (“The Immersion Study” or “The Ramirez Study”)......17
4. Acquiring language proficiency: separating fact and fiction........................................18
4.1 Developmental interdependence hypothesis..........................................................19
4.2 Threshold hypothesis.............................................................................................19
4.3 Comprehensible input hypothesis..........................................................................20
5. The Thomas and Collier study......................................................................................21
5.1 “How long?” research............................................................................................23
5.3 The Prism Model...................................................................................................27
6. Effective program characteristics.................................................................................28
7. Two-way bilingual education.......................................................................................31
Conclusions......................................................................................................................33
Bibliography.....................................................................................................................35
2

3. Introduction
It is indisputable that bilingual education has been a topic of great controversy in
recent decades in the United States. However, it has not always been this way. As a
nation composed of immigrants from all parts of the world, bilingualism has, and
continues to be, a reality of this country. Why is it then, that the issue of bilingual
education, which was once widely accepted, has become such a contentious topic of
debate among Americans? Since its development as a nation, language policies “have
ranged from repression to restriction to tolerance to accommodation, depending on
forces that usually have little to do with language” (Crawford, 2000, 9). Simply put, a
wide array of social, economic, and political factors throughout history, as well as
questions regarding national identity, assimilation, unity, and power have shaped and
transformed public opinion on bilingual education.
Unfortunately, political and ideological differences are what most influence
perceptions of bilingual education, as opposed to research and evidence regarding
pedagogical effectiveness. Who, then, are the supporters and opponents of bilingual
education today? For the most part, supporters of bilingual education consist of
linguists, intellectuals, minority organizations, educators, civil rights lawyers and
activists, among others. Opponents of bilingual education, on the other hand, tend to
consist of conservative politicians and their followers, school administrators, and
special interest groups such as US English and English First. The latter category
promote English as an official language and assimilation of all immigrants. They
believe that the priority of immigrant schoolchildren should be to learn English first
and assimilate as quickly as possible. The opponents attribute academic failure and
high drop-out rates among language-minority groups (particularly Latinos) to
bilingual education. They also may mention in their arguments some anecdotal
evidence involving an ancestor who came to the US 100+ years ago, did not receive
any special help, and did just fine. The reality is that the situation is not the same as it
was 100 years ago. Back then, a high school diploma was not needed to find work.
Now, education is becoming increasingly important and competitive. Most Americans
today continue on to higher education after completing high school, which was not the
case during the first half of the 20th
century.
3

4. Immigration in America is not just a phenomenon of a distant past, but a reality
of the present and future. In 1990, 32 million people in the United States over the age
of 5 spoke a language other than English in their home, accounting for 14 percent of
the total US population. By the year 2000, that number rose by 47 percent, comprising
of approximately 47 million speakers of other languages, or 18% of the total US
population. A large and steadily growing number of students in American public
schools come from these homes. The number of English Language Learners (ELLs)
increased from about 2 million students in 1993-1994 to 3 million students in 1999-
2000, an increase of 5 percent. Although ELLs are found in all parts of the country,
they are mostly concentrated in specific geographic regions. Over half of the ELL
population are located in the West, with the highest population in California.1
These
numbers are predicted to grow. This means that the demographic of schools is rapidly
changing. Educators and policymakers must be prepared to properly address such
changes in student population, in order to ensure that each student is provided with
equal educational opportunities. Now more than ever, with high educational demands
and increasing competitiveness, it is in the interest of all citizens that the future
generation of adults be well-educated and prepared to live as participative, productive
individuals.
1. What is bilingual education?
Bilingual education, in its simplest form, is the teaching of academic content in
two different languages. This definition, however, is very broad and leaves many
important questions unanswered. Bilingual education, in the American context, is
entirely different in its goals and methods from the bilingual education as understood
in Europe and Canada. As a result, some of the terminology used to describe or
identify programs is also different.
When referring to bilingual education, “a distinction is needed between
education that uses and promotes two languages and education for language minority
children” (Baker, 2001, 192). The former is referred to as “additive bilingualism” or
“maintenance bilingualism”, and can be seen in places such as Quebec, Wales,
Catalonia, and the Basque Country, among many others. The latter, which this paper
1
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004035.pdf
4

5. will mostly focus on, is known as “subtractive bilingualism” or “transitional
bilingualism”, and is frequently seen in the US. Although maintenance bilingual
programs also exist in the US, they are far more scarce. Although both terms fall
under the umbrella category of bilingual education, they are markedly different in
their goals and methods. The most important issues concern the amount of time
dedicated to each language, and the ultimate goals behind giving dual language
instruction. There are several different types of bilingual programs, each with
different aims and varying amounts of each language. For coherency purposes, this
paper will be focusing on the types of bilingual education programs offered in the
U.S. The following section will discuss in further detail the various models of
bilingual education offered in the United States.
1.1. Bilingual education program models
 Structured immersion2
In structured immersion programs, all instruction is in English with limited
native language assistance. However, English as a Second Language (ESL) classes are
tailored to the student’s level of proficiency. Reinforcement of concepts may be
provided in the native language if deemed necessary. The children may also speak in
their native language.
 Transitional (“subtractive bilingualism”)
Transitional bilingual programs include the “early-exit” and “late-exit” options.
Transitional programs provide substantial amounts of both English and native
language instruction, although the amount of each language used varies by district
and/or institution. After reaching a level of proficiency, the student is transferred to
mainstream monolingual English classes. In the early-exit option, the student is
transferred out after typically 2-3 years. In the late-exit option, the student is
transferred out of the program after the sixth grade, regardless of level of proficiency
obtained in English. The goal of transitional bilingual programs is not to foster
bilingualism or to maintain the native tongue, but rather to assimilate the language
minority student into the linguistic and cultural majority. Transitional programs are
2
Some authors refer to Structured Immersion as “Submersion”, as a form of criticism. This is incorrect and
creates ambiguity. Submersion consists of placing English-language learners in mainstream English classes
(the “sink or swim” method), which is not a form of bilingual education.
5

6. the most common type of bilingual education used in the United States, as well as the
most funded.
 Maintenance or developmental (“additive bilingualism”)
In maintenance bilingual programs, also known as developmental bilingual
programs, the student receives ample instruction in English and the native language.
However, even after attaining English proficiency, instruction continues in the two
languages. Unlike transitional programs, maintenance programs aim to foster
bilingualism, biliteracy, and cultural pluralism.
 Two-way immersion
Two-way immersion bilingual programs, like maintenance programs, are also of
an “additive bilingualism” nature. In these programs, speakers of both English and the
minority language are put together in the same classroom. The goal is to attain
proficiency in both languages, where the English-proficient students learn the
minority language and the minority language students learn English. Two-way
immersion programs aim to foster both bilingualism and biliteracy as well as cultural
pluralism. Coral Way Elementary School in Florida is an example of a two-way / dual-
language school, and will be discussed later on in section 7.
1.2 The problem with labels
As we will find out in the chapters that discuss program evaluations, there exists
a clear problem in the categorization of bilingual programs. As stated earlier, the
amount of English instruction and minority language instruction can vary greatly
between districts, and sometimes even between schools within the same district. For
example, what is considered Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) in one school or
district, may be considered ESL in another. These variations are problematic when
evaluating the effectiveness of bilingual programs. Furthermore, it is more important
to focus on what characteristics make a program effective, as opposed to focusing
solely on the label.
2. The history of bilingual education in the United States
As a nation of immigrants from all over the world, bilingualism is nothing new
to the United States. Bilingual education as it is understood today, on the other hand,
6

7. is a relatively new phenomenon, sparked by a series of sociopolitical changes
throughout US history. In order to understand the current issues surrounding the
bilingual education debate, it is fundamental to understand the history of the evolution
of bilingual education policy and the historical events which have shaped public
opinion on the issue.
2.1 Precolonial times through mid-19th
century
Before the Europeans first arrived in the North American territories which have
come to be the United States, an estimated 200 – 1000 indigenous languages
coexisted. When the British colonizers began to settle in the New World colonies, they
did not establish any restrictive language policy. When the founding fathers were
writing the Constitution, language policy was intentionally left out, as it went against
personal liberties. As various groups settled in U.S. territory, bilingualism was
accepted and formed part of daily life. Because language is very closely related with
one’s cultural heritage and identity, early European immigrant groups formed
enclaves, maintaining and promoting their mother tongue through religious services,
business, and schooling. Several states passed laws authorizing bilingual education.
During the mid-19th
century, instruction in public and private schools in various states
was provided partially or fully in German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch,
Polish, Italian, Czech, French, and Spanish (Ovando, 2003, 4).
2.2. Late 19th
century through early 20th
century
The late 19th
century was a turning point in the development of language
policy. During this time, pride in ancestral language and culture began to be replaced
with assimilationist and Americanization sentiments. Furthermore, immigration and
language policy was becoming more restrictive as a consequence of the diversifying
new immigrant population and a rising fear of foreign influence.
The Nationality Act of 1906 required that all immigrants must know English in
order to begin the naturalization process. The rationale behind this piece of legislation
can be summed up by then-president Theodore Roosevelt: “We have room for but one
language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible
turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a
7

8. polyglot boarding-house.” Many Americans at this time shared Roosevelt’s view that
the English language was the glue that unified the nation.
In 1917, a yet even more restrictive law was passed known as the Immigration
Act of 1917. Under this law, new immigrants were required to pass a literacy test.
This law went further than the Nationality Act because it required all immigrants over
the age of 16 to know how to read and write in English, as opposed to just being able
to speak and understand it. This law also prohibited immigration from most countries
in Asia. Around this time, several states were requiring literacy tests to be able to
vote. Such measures illustrate the strong correlation between racial prejudice,
xenophobia, and linguistic restrictions. Disenfranchising ethnic minorities under the
pretense of a language barrier served as a subtle way for the ruling elites to maintain
their position in society.
European nationalism, the start of World War I, and the First Red Scare created
tension and suspicion relating to foreign allegiances. Animosity towards the Germans
was especially high. By 1923, 34 states had laws prohibiting non-English instruction
in public schools (Fitzgerald, 1993, 39). During World War II, due to shattered
relations with Japan, all Japanese-language schools in the U.S. were closed.
The restrictive language legislation at the federal and state level led to several
court cases regarding the constitutionality of such laws. The first half of the 20th
century contained several important Supreme Court cases regarding bilingual
education or influencing it in some way.
 1923 Meyer v. Nebraska
World War I had created animosity towards Germany. A 1919 Nebraska law,
known as the Siman Act, restricted foreign language instruction, stating that “No
person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or
public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than the English
language.” In 1920, Robert Meyer, a parochial school instructor, was charged for
teaching reading in the German language to a 10 year old child. Meyer appealed to the
Supreme Court, where the Nebraska law was deemed unconstitutional.
 1927 Farrington v. Tokushige
8

9. In this case, the Supreme Court declared a Hawaii law that prohibited foreign
language instruction in schools without a permit unconstitutional.
 1954 Brown v. Board of Education
This landmark court case called for the desegregation of public schools, overturning
the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Brown v.
Board was the first major case to dramatically affect education policy. Although this
case was aimed at achieving African-American civil rights, it had later been
interpreted by other minority groups as a way of ensuring equal educational
opportunities for all.
2.3 Mid 20th
century through present
It was not until the Civil Rights Movement and the aftermath of Brown v.
Board when social activists and organizations began fighting for bilingual education.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination “on the basis of
race, color, and national origin” in federal-funded educational programs. This
landmark legislation resulted in the creation of many ethnic minority organizations
with the intent of fighting discrimination in schools based on language (as interpreted
under “national origin”). Among these organizations were many Latino civil rights
groups, pushing for a more meaningful education for language minority students.
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968, also known as Title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was the first piece of federal legislation to
address the needs of Limited English Proficient (LEP) speakers. The BEA provided
financial assistance to local educational agencies to invent and implement innovative
public school programs designed to meet the educational needs of immigrant students.
Although the Bilingual Education Act had good intentions and was a step in the right
direction in terms of education reform, this legislation contained several flaws that
needed to be corrected. First, the bill was relatively low-financed compared to other
social programs. Second, it was not made mandatory to implement bilingual education
programs. As a result, few school districts took part during the first few years of its
implementation. Lastly, and most importantly, the bill was too vague. It did not define
bilingual education, specify goals, nor did it establish a curriculum or suggest any
particular teaching method. In the following decade, proponents of bilingual education
9

10. took it upon themselves to improve the legislation in order to strengthen bilingual
education policy.
As stated above, within the first ten years of the Bilingual Education Act, many
changes were made to improve the legislation. Previously, the bill’s funding was
limited to the development of educational programs. This was later modified to
include funding for teacher-training, curriculum development, and research (San
Miguel, 2004, 27). Federal funding also increased substantially within the first ten
years. In addressing the problem relating to the bill’s previously undefined goals, a
1974 provision stated that the objective was to provide equal educational opportunity
for children through bilingual programs. The new provision in the bill defined
bilingual education as “instruction given in, and study of, English and, to the extent
necessary to allow a child to progress effectively through the educational system, the
native language of the children of limited English-speaking ability [...] given with
appreciation for the cultural heritage of such children” (San Miguel, 2004, 31). The
idea of promoting multicultural understanding generated controversy about the
objectives of the program, including whether or not the native language should be
maintained once the child acquires English (maintenance education, “additive
bilingualism”), or if native instruction should switch entirely to English once fluency
is obtained (transitional education, “subtractive bilingualism”). This then led to the
debate on whether schools should promote assimilation through English immersion or
cultural pluralism and preservation of the native tongue.
By the 1970’s, all three branches of federal government were involved in the
establishment of bilingual education programs. In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled in
the civil rights case Lau v. Nichols. The case was raised by Chinese American students
with limited English proficiency in a San Francisco school district, claiming they were
being discriminated against on the basis of language because they were not receiving
special help entitled to them under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme
Court ruled in favor of the students, as they were not receiving equal educational
opportunity based on their language barrier. The Supreme Court also reasoned that the
responsibility in dealing with language barriers falls on the schools, as opposed to the
parents or children (Nieto, 2009, 64). As a result of the Lau case, federal funded
10

11. bilingual education programs shifted from being voluntary to mandatory. By 1978,
bilingual education became mandatory for all schools with a significant population of
LEP students. Failure to do so resulted in withdrawal of federal funding (San Miguel,
2004, 34).
Bilingual education growth was not without opposition. In 1977, a study
published by conservative journalist Noel Epstein, was the first of its kind to criticize
the policy. In his study, Epstein raised several questions regarding the effectiveness of
bilingual education programs. One of his questions was whether or not these programs
were truly making a difference in the academic achievement of language minority
students and in their acquisition of English (San Miguel, 2004, 42). During this time,
few studies were available on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Another
question he raised was to what extent the federal government should get involved in
education. Epstein argued that the federal government and public schools should not
be held responsible for the preservation of ethnic cultures and languages. Instead, this
preservation should be left up to families, religious groups, ethnic organizations, etc.
Another report to question the effectiveness of bilingual education programs was
known as the AIR (American Institute for Research) Report, which is discussed in
further detail in section 3.
In 1978, a case known as Castaneda v. Pickard was filed in Texas against the
Raymondville Independent School district. Castaneda, a father of two Mexican-
American children, claimed that the district did not provide sufficient bilingual
programs, as guaranteed by the Lau decision. The court ruled in favor of the school
district, claiming that the children’s constitutional rights were not being violated.
Castaneda, as a result, filed for an appeal. In 1981, the court ruled in favor of
Castaneda and established assessment guidelines that consisted of three parts:
 The program must be based on “sound educational theory”
 The program must be “implemented effectively with resources for personnel,
instructional materials, and space.”
 After a trial period, the program must be proven effective in overcoming
language barriers
11

12. During the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations in the 1980’s and
early 1990’s, anti bilingualism sentiments began to reemerge. These conservative
leaders believed in limited federal government involvement, which included federal
government involvement in education, as noted by Epstein. During this time, a
movement known as English Only gave birth to a wide array of criticisms of bilingual
education. The opposition was mostly of an ideological and political nature, rather
than a scientific and empirical one. A fear of the growing influence of ethnic
minorities in politics disrupting the status quo of society’s elite, a preference for
cultural pluralism as opposed to assimilation and Americanization threatening the
unity of the country, and the costly nature of the establishment and maintenance of
such programs were just some of the reasons for opposition. Further amendments
were made to the Bilingual Education Act, which abolished the mandatory
requirement for bilingual programs and allowed for an ESL option.
Contrary to popular belief, English is not the official language of the United
States. The US, at the federal level, does not have an official language. English is the
de facto language, because nowhere in the US constitution is there any mention of an
official language protected by law. The English Only movement and its constituents
push for a change to make English the only official language at the federal level. In
turn, they also want to do away with bilingual programs, implementing instead
English immersion and ESL programs without native language support, as can be seen
in California’s Proposition 227, discussed later on. As James Crawford points out,
“increasingly it is politics, not pedagogy, that determines how children are taught”
(Crawford, 2000, 3). This applies to both sides of the political spectrum, where
politicians exploit their views on what education should be in order to garner the votes
of a specific population. Many of the arguments for English-only are emotionally
charged using anecdotal evidence, with little to no empirical data supporting their
claims. Some of the common arguments are as follows: English is what unites us and
helps understanding, bilingual programs discourage new immigrants from learning
English, languages are best learn in a “sink or swim” environment, and that language
diversity is a threat to US unity and may result in political or ethnic separatism
(Crawford, 2000, 6). Many of these claims are flawed at best. Using the example of
12

13. Latinos in the United States – currently the largest minority group in the country – it
is true that immigration from Spanish-speaking countries is continuously on the rise,
trends have shown that, typically by the third generation, the mother tongue is
forgotten at the expense of English. Therefore, the claim that English is being
endangered by other languages is completely false. Whereas it is true that having a
language in common helps in understanding one another, the existence of other
languages does not threaten the unity of the country. The United States has been home
to hundreds of different languages coexisting for hundreds of years, and there has
never been a political party based on national origin or language.
In 2001, George W. Bush assumed presidency. During the Bush administration,
the Republicans held the majority in the House of Representatives. This shift in power
resulted in several changes affecting bilingual education. Former president Bush and
the Republican Party favored English Only methods and proposed a three-year limit
on bilingual instruction. In 2002, Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act.
The former bilingual education act (Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act) was replaced by Title III of the No Child Left Behind act. Title III,
known as “Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant
Children”, did not prohibit nor endorse bilingual education. However, many advocates
of bilingual education consider the new legislation to be a step backward in education
reform for language-minority students. NCLB uses a high-stakes testing process
whose results determine the “failure” or “success” of a school. Thus, schools with
significant ELL populations receive failing grades due to the “one-size-fits-all”
evaluations. As a result, programs which ignore the needs of ELL students and
programs which are improving are lumped together in the same failing category.
Whereas a school-accountability system in itself is a wise idea, it must be ensured that
the approach used to measure accountability is fair, accurate, and yields useful
information about how to improve schools. Unfortunately, the law accomplishes the
contrary. The law’s pitfalls are best summarized by James Crawford, executive
director of the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE):
The law does little to address the most formidable obstacles to their
achievement: resource inequities, critical shortages of teachers trained to
serve ELLs, inadequate instructional materials, substandard school facilities,
13

14. and poorly designed instructional programs. Meanwhile, its emphasis on
short-term test results – backed up by punitive sanctions for schools – is
narrowing the curriculum, encouraging excessive amounts of test preparation,
undercutting best practices based on scientific research, demoralizing
dedicated educators, and pressuring schools to abandon programs that have
proven successful for ELLs over the long term. (Crawford, 2004, 1-2)
English Language Learners are a unique and enormously varied group with specific
needs that are not being met by the NCLB law. Whereas native English speakers are
only responsible for course content, ELLs must master the course content while
learning a second language at the same time – a much more difficult and demanding
task. Even so, the standardized tests are not designed with them in mind.
2.4 Proposition 227 and the English-only movement in California
In 1998, a law known as Proposition 227 “English for the Children” was
passed in California, the state with the largest amount of LEP students. This initiative,
as stated by its creator Ron Unz, was inspired by a boycott of the Ninth Street
Elementary School in Los Angeles by a group of Latino parents who wanted to
withdraw their children from their bilingual education program. This protest, and Ron
Unz’s campaign sparked national media attention, leading to the belief that the
majority of Latino’s preferred English-only education. Not surprisingly, Proposition
227 only received 30% of the Latino vote. Regardless of the low Latino support,
Proposition 227 passed with a 61% majority. The law prohibits bilingual education in
California public schools, unless the parent solicits a waiver requesting that their
children be put in bilingual programs if believed that it is the only appropriate means
of addressing their children’s needs. However, this can only be done if the child is age
10 years or older or is of special needs.
Under Proposition 227, all children are placed in English classrooms. English
Language Learners “shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a
temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year.”3
Once these
ELLs have obtained a “good working knowledge” of English (this is not defined),
they are transferred to mainstream classrooms. This can be a dangerous move, as
children are often prematurely mainstreamed once they have developed a “surface oral
fluency that masks the lack of a deeper understanding of the language that would
3
http://www.onenation.org/fulltext.html
14

15. enable them to successfully compete with their majority-language classmates” (del
Valle, 2003, 222). These issues will be discussed in more detail in section 4.
Proposition 227 started a trend in statewide anti-bilingual education. One year
after Proposition 227 was passed, a law prohibiting bilingual education programs was
passed in Arizona, and in Massachusetts in 2002. This phenomenon can easily be
explained by the wide amount of media attention surrounding Proposition 227, rather
than scientific evidence concerning the effectiveness of the legislation, which to this
day has remained inconclusive.
3. National evaluation studies
Prior to the 1970’s, research regarding the effectiveness of bilingual programs versus
English immersion was non-existent. In response to the growing number of questions
and concerns regarding bilingual education, the US Department of Education
commissioned several studies, as will be discussed in the following three subsections.
3.1 The AIR report
The AIR report was the first major study used to evaluate the effectiveness of
Spanish/English bilingual programs. The main purpose of the study was to evaluate
the academic achievement of students enrolled in bilingual programs in subjects such
as English reading and oral comprehension, language, and math, as compared to
students not enrolled in bilingual programs. A group of about 8000 students were
measured twice on the aforementioned subjects. The results showed that there was no
major difference in the level of achievement between both groups. As the first study of
its kind, the report contained several flaws in regards to the control group, which may
have skewed the validity of its results. The main flaw involving the control group was
that two-thirds of the students had been previously enrolled in bilingual programs.
Due to the controversy surrounding the validity of this study, the US Department of
Education commissioned two other studies, discussed below in the following two
subsections.
15

16. 3.2 The National Longitudinal Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Services for Language Minority Limited English Proficient
Students (“The Longitudinal Study”)
The longitudinal study was the first large-scale study by the Department of Education.
The study consisted of two phases: the descriptive phase and the longitudinal phase.
The descriptive phase researched the services provided to language-minority, limited
English proficient (LM-LEP) students as well as the number and demographics of
students in kindergarten through fifth grade were receiving these services. The
descriptive phase was conducted during the years 1984 through 1987. Some of the
findings of this phase include the following (Meyer & Feinberg, 1992, 25) :
 The need for bilingual services was concentrated in several states. The largest
population of LEP students resided in California (70%), Texas (20%), and New
York (11%).
 LEP students were of significantly lower economic status than other students.
 LEP students were academically at-risk. Their level of performance was below
that of their grade level in all subjects with the exception of mathematics.
 Most instruction was done in English or in a combination of English and the
native language.
 There were problems with entry and exit of bilingual programs, including
inadequate criteria for program entry and no time limit on continued
enrollment in the program
The second phase was a longitudinal study which observed English language learners
and English proficient students from kindergarten through fifth grade over the course
of three years. The main objective of this phase of the study was to determine which
services are most effective in enabling LM-LEP students to function successfully in
all-English classrooms. Unfortunately, this objective was not achieved due to poor
execution of the study and flawed data analysis covered up with sophisticated
statistical methods. Overall, despite this study’s many shortcomings, the descriptive
phase is useful for just that – providing a description of the services made available at
the time, but not evaluating them.
16

17. 3.3 Longitudinal Study of Immersion and Dual Language
Instructional Programs for Language Minority Students
(“The Immersion Study” or “The Ramirez Study”)
The Immersion Study compared the effectiveness of structured English immersion and
late-exit bilingual education with the effectiveness of early-exit bilingual education.
The study was an eight-year project, beginning in 1983 and ending in 1991. Data was
collected throughout four years, with an individual report done at the end of each year.
The three programs (immersion, early-exit, and late-exit) represent three different
teaching models. The instructors participating in this study remained faithful to the
respective models. Thus, one can make the conclusion that differences in student
performances can be attributed to differences in the program’s instructional methods.
According to the final report of the Ramirez study, the following conclusions were
made (Meyer & Feinberg, 1992, 68):
 LEP students in the immersion program and the early-exit program achieved
comparable skills in language, mathematics, and reading when tested in
English.
 Students in the site with the most use of Spanish and the site with the most use
of English finished sixth grade with the same skills in English language and
reading
 Students in the late-exit sites with the most use of Spanish scored better results
in mathematics than the students in the early-exit and immersion sites.
 Students in all three programs attained a growth in English reading and
language skills as fast as the normal population
 Parental involvement was greatest in the late-exit programs
Due to the fact that the programs were not specifically created for the study, but
rather were found throughout the country, there exist some unintentional differences
that must be taken into consideration before evaluating the results of the study. One of
these differences involves the linguistic abilities and the academic qualifications of
the instructors. In all three programs, the teachers had high levels of English language
skills to be able to provide instruction in English. However, only in the late-exit
program did the instructors possess enough Spanish language skills to be able to teach
17

18. in Spanish. Furthermore, aside from linguistic competence, the instructors in the late-
exit programs generally had higher teaching qualifications, most of them possessing
master’s degrees.
In terms of the use of English, only the instructors in the immersion programs
were homogeneous in their almost exclusive use of the English language. In one of the
early-exit sites, the classes were taught almost entirely in English, making it almost
indistinguishable from the immersion programs.
Another unintended consequence of the study was the loss of participants. In
all three groups, more than half of the students either transferred to another school or
district that were not a part of the study, or left for unknown reasons. The highest
percentage of students who left the study belonged to the late-exit program. The late-
exit program was the rarest to find of the three, representing only one-third of the
sites.
4. Acquiring language proficiency: separating fact and
fiction
What does it mean to be proficient in a language? Although the answer may
seem simple, it is actually very complex and therefore cannot be easily evaluated
using a proficiency test. While it may appear on the surface that a child seems to have
gained fluency in conversational English, this does not mean that they have acquired
the necessary English skills to survive in an academic setting. The former, that is,
conversational English, develops much more quickly than academic English (which
includes literacy). As a result, one must be careful in evaluating the child’s level of
proficiency before deciding to switch them into mainstream English classes (Hakuta
and Gould, 1987, 40). Hakuta and Gould cite Jim Cummins, a Canadian linguist who
specializes in bilingual education, who claims that whereas children may acquire oral
proficiency in as little as two years, it can take between five and seven years to
acquire the level of proficiency needed to survive in all-English academic situations
such as writing academic texts, reading a textbook, or understanding teacher
explanations (Hakuta and Gould, 1987, 41). Furthermore, the rate at which a child
acquires a second language varies considerably. The acquisition of a second language
is influenced by a number of factors including, but not limited to, personality, attitude,
18

19. and strength of the native language (Ibid, 41). Strength of the native language is
especially a key factor. Jim Cummins’ hypothesis of linguistic interdependence,
discussed in the following section, defends this idea. Critics of bilingual education
argue that LEP students are kept too long in bilingual education, but prematurely
mainstreaming these students can slow their progress in later grades, running the risk
of academic failure and higher likelihood of dropping out. Years spent in L1 education
are not “wasted”, as many critics of bilingual education argue. On the contrary,
academic skills acquired in one language easily transfer to another language. The
argument that maintaining the native language slows down the development of the
second language is invalid. The old belief that bilingualism is a mental handicap that
slows down cognitive functions is also false. If anything, knowledge of more than one
language has advantageous effects on cognitive and linguistic development
(Cummins, 1979, 6).
4.1 Developmental interdependence hypothesis
The developmental interdependence hypothesis, as established by Cummins, proposes
that “the level of L2 competence that a bilingual child attains is partially a function of
the type of competence the child has developed in L1 at the time when intensive
exposure to L2 begins” (Cummins, 1979, 23). In other words, children who have a
higher developed L1 will acquire their L2 quicker and more easily than children
whose L1 is not as developed. This hypothesis is supported by research from bilingual
program evaluations, in particular a study by Thomas and Collier in 1997 which will
be covered in section five.
4.2 Threshold hypothesis
Cummins’ threshold hypothesis also proposes a clear relationship between L1 and L2.
The hypothesis suggests that there may be “threshold levels of linguistic competence
that bilingual children must attain both in order to avoid cognitive deficits and to
allow the potentially beneficial aspects of becoming bilingual to influence their
cognitive growth” (Cummins, 1979, 16). He identifies two threshold levels: the lower
and higher level. The lower level of linguistic competence is the sufficient enough
point at which the child avoids negative cognitive effects. The higher level of
19

20. bilingual competence is the point at which the child may experience accelerated
cognitive growth. The threshold “cannot be defined in absolute terms”, but rather
varies “according to the children’s stage of cognitive development and the academic
demands of different stages of schooling” (Cummins, 1979, 18). An explanation as to
why cognitive retardation is not shown in the early years of L2 instruction is because
early grades require less language dependence than the later grades.
4.3 Comprehensible input hypothesis
Stephen Krashen specializes in second language acquisition and bilingual education.
Although the terms “acquisition” and “learning” seem to be used interchangeably,
Krashen points out an important difference. Language acquisition is the subconscious
process of obtaining language. We all acquire our first language subconsciously.
However, language acquisition is not exclusive to one’s first language. Similarly, a
person who moves to a foreign country to live and work can also acquire a new
language by being immersed in that environment. Language learning, on the other
hand, is the conscious, metalinguistic process of actually studying a language through
formal instruction. We “learn” a language by studying grammar, practicing spelling,
etc. The processes of learning and acquiring a language often occur at the same time.
According to Krashen, we acquire our second language the same way we acquire our
first language, albeit not at the same speed. Both first and second language is acquired
by what he has named “comprehensible input”. This means that we acquire language
by understanding messages. Krashen states that “We acquire by understanding
language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i
[current level of competence] + 1). This is done with the help of context or extra-
linguistic information” (Krashen, 1982, 21). This hypothesis places more importance
on content rather than form, whereas formal instruction in L2 functions on the
contrary. Traditionally, in L2 classrooms, the method used is the following:
Learn grammatical structure  practice using production  fluency
Using the comprehensible input hypothesis, the order is changed
Acquire meaning through messages  eventually acquire structure  fluency
When comparing the above patterns, it can be seen that the second pattern is what we
follow to acquire L1. Thus, according to this hypothesis, we acquire L2 exactly the
20

21. same way we acquire L1. When following this pattern, it is natural that early speech is
not grammatically correct. Accuracy develops over time as more input is offered and
understood. (Krashen, 1982, 22).
It is important to note that the input we receive in L1 and L2 begins with
simplified codes. These codes, as Krashen points out, are not designed to teach the
language, but to convey meaning. The language a parent uses to communicate with a
young child in the process of acquiring his or her first language is similar to the
language a native speaker uses to communicate with a foreigner and the language a
teacher uses to communicate with a L2 student.
Before a child begins to speak in their native tongue, they are building up
competence through the input they have received and continue to receive through
listening and understanding messages. This “silent period”, as Krashen calls it, is also
often seen in children beginning to learn their L2. These children may take several
months before they develop the confidence needed to express themselves in their new
language. When children in an L2 classroom are told to produce language before they
have acquired enough competence, their L1 may “interfere”. In other words, they will
use L1 rules to express themselves in L2.
Krashen argues that comprehensible input is the optimal method in acquiring a
second language and is more effective than traditional “rule – production –
correction” methods. As a fervent supporter of bilingual education, Krashen’s theory
supports his views. Mainstreaming English language learners before they are ready
halts their progress, and mainstreaming ELLs from the beginning provides little-to-no
comprehensive input, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to acquire the L2.
5. The Thomas and Collier study
One of the most common questions researchers and policymakers wish to address is
how long does it take for the language minority student to reach native-like
proficiency in English. To answer this question, Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier
did a longitudinal study of student performance in five large school districts during
the years 1982 through 1996. Their research methods were far superior to previous
studies for a variety of reasons. Some of these aforementioned methods include the
following:
21

22.  Whereas prior research only looked at student achievement over a short period
of time, this particular study examined long-term student achievement
 The study only selected programs that were well-implemented in order to
diminish “the confounding effects of implementation differences on
instructional effectiveness” (Thomas and Collier, 1997, 6)
 The study provides conclusions that were supported in all five school districts
 The study evaluates a very large sample of students, a total of more than
700,000 individual student records.
 The study evaluates student achievement in all subject areas, not just English
proficiency.
 The research is action-oriented and decision-oriented rather than conclusion-
oriented
 The study encourages repetition of the research in other school districts
The study particularly emphasizes the importance of evaluating student achievement
over a long period of time, which is what most sets apart this study from previous
research which only looked at short-term achievement. Thomas and Collier state that a
1-4 year evaluation is too short-term for a process that is far too complex, such as
second language acquisition. They further state that the most important measures are
from the high school years, as the language and academic content becomes cognitively
more difficult and abstract.
The research conducted in this study sought to answer the following questions:
1. How much time is needed for language minority students who are English
language learners to reach and sustain on-grade-level achievement in their
second language?
2. Which student, program, and instructional variables strongly affect the long-
term academic achievement of language minority students?
22

23. 5.1 “How long?” research
The decision for Thomas and Collier to pursue this research question was
based on the desire to challenge the conclusions made by Jim Cummins in his
previous research, conducted in Canada. In Cummins’ study of immigrant children
arriving in Canada, he concluded that it typically takes between 5 and 7 years to reach
academic parity with the native English speaker. Surprisingly, Thomas and Collier
obtained similar results in their research, conducted in five large school districts
across the United States. Their study noted that students who arrived in the United
States between ages 8 and 11 took between 5 to 7 years to reach English language
proficiency, whereas those who arrived to the US before age 8 took 7 to 10 years or
more. Both the younger and older arrivals had the same background characteristics,
the only difference being that the older arrivals had received more formal instruction
in their native language. Thus, it can be assumed that the amount of L1 schooling
plays a significant role in addressing the “how long” question. The greater the
instruction children receive in their L1, the more successful they will be in acquiring
academic proficiency in the L2.
Consistent with prior studies (including, but not limited to, the longitudinal
study and the Ramirez study as highlighted in Chapter 3), students made quicker
progress in mathematics and language arts but required many years in reading,
science, and social studies (Thomas & Collier, 1997, 34). Another finding consistent
with prior studies is that ELLs make large initial progress in the early grades (grades
1-3), regardless of program type, as seen in Figure 1. However, students schooled all
in English quickly fall behind their peers in the later grades, as course content
becomes more cognitively complex and demanding, thus creating a large achievement
gap between ELLs and native speakers with each passing year. Prior studies have been
too short-term focused, thus failing to notice the decrease in achievement in the
middle and high school years.
“How long”: Student background variables considered
23

24. In the “How long” study, Thomas and Collier examined groups of students separately,
considering several background variables that the bilingual and ESL staff deemed
potentially influential on long-term achievement.
Age and L1 and L2 proficiency
In order to avoid confounding results, Thomas and Collier examined separately groups
of students of the same age who start L2 training at the same point in time. For
example, the progress of students who begin ESL instruction in first grade would
belong in one group, and students who arrive in second grade would be another group,
and so on.
Socioeconomic status
Socioeconomic status, in every study involving school children, is a difficult variable
to measure. The only way to “measure” socioeconomic status is to identify students
who qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch. In the Thomas and Collier study,
approximately 57 percent of the sample qualified for this service. However, one’s
socioeconomic status, as Thomas and Collier note, is confounded by other variables at
the student-level. Such variables include family aspirations, previous socioeconomic
status in their home country, and amount of the parent’s formal schooling. The
personal circumstances of each student’s family background can vary. For example, a
student whose parents had belonged to the middle class in their home country and had
received formal education, may experience a financial setback which is only
temporary. However, being educated in their country of origin, and providing L1
academic and linguistic support to their child at home, sets them apart from those
children whose parents came from a poor background in their home country with little
or no formal education. As a result of these confounding variables, socioeconomic
status is a less useful variable than school administrators and staff may think.
Student’s L1
Many educators assume that the student’s native language is an important background
variable on long-term academic success. However, research has shown that the L1
does not make a difference. In other words, a native Spanish speaker will make the
same progress as a native Mandarin Chinese speaker, provided that, they have the
same level of L1 schooling. Therefore, the true predictor for long-term academic
24

25. achievement is not which language the student speaks at home, but how much this
language has been developed.
Amount of L1 schooling
As stated before, the most important and powerful predictor for long-term academic
achievement is the amount of L1 schooling the student has received. L1 development
is interrelated with cognitive development. Children who stop cognitive development
in their native language before they have reached the Piagetian stage of formal
operations (when the child knows how to think abstractly, around age 11 or 12), “run
the risk of suffering negative consequences” (Thomas & Collier, 1997, 41). One of
these negative consequences may be acquiring what is known as semiliteracy. This
means that the child does not become fully literate neither in their L1 and L2.
Cummins suggests that there is a certain threshold that the student must reach in their
L1 in order to facilitate successful learning in the L2. Thus, the belief that the
language-minority student must learn English first does not address the cognitive and
academic needs of the school-aged child. Learning English first only slows down the
child’s cognitive and academic growth, and he or she may never catch up with the
constantly advancing native English speaker.
25

26. Figure 1
Figure 2
26

27. 5.3 The Prism Model
Based on the results of their study, Thomas and Collier developed an educational
model which they have named the Prism Model, as illustrated in Figure 2. As the
name suggests, this model is a “multifaceted prism with many dimensions” (Thomas
& Collier, 1997, 42). The four components that make up the model – sociocultural,
linguistic, academic, and cognitive processes – are, as Thomas and Collier suggest,
interdependent.
Sociocultural Processes
When dealing with language-minority students, it is of utmost importance to provide a
supportive sociocultural environment. Social patterns such as prejudice,
discrimination, and subordinate status can create feelings of low self-esteem and high
anxiety, which may negatively affect the minority-language student’s drive to succeed.
On the other hand, a supportive sociocultural environment where the teachers and
administrators hold high expectations of their students can only positively affect the
learning process. A two-way bilingual classroom with bilingual, biliterate, and
bicultural instructors is ideal for creating this environment. Furthermore, when two
groups of students (native English speakers and English language learners) are placed
together in the same classroom, each group learning the other group’s language and
culture, this creates an “enrichment” experience. A teacher who is bilingual, biliterate,
and bicultural serves as a role model, for having once been in the same situation as the
language-minority student and having been successful. On the other hand, ESL pull-
out classes are seen as remedial help and their native language viewed as inferior,
which can also negatively impact the student’s self-esteem and desire to excel.
Language Development (L1 and L2)
The linguistic development portion of this model consists of the acquisition of both
the oral and written systems of both the L1 and L2. This includes the subconscious,
innate aspects of language development as well as the metalinguistic, formal teaching
of language in all of its components. Again, it is important to stress that the oral and
written systems of the student’s L1 must be developed to a high enough level in order
to assure success in the L2. If not, the child runs the risk of failing to reach
proficiency in both languages.
27

28. Academic Development (L1 and L2)
Academic development involves school work in language arts, mathematics, science,
and social studies for each grade level. With each grade, academic work “expands the
vocabulary, sociolinguistic, and discourse dimensions to higher cognitive levels”
(Thomas & Collier, 1997, 43). In other words, the academic work with each grade
becomes increasingly complex and demanding. Therefore, in an all-English setting, it
is likely that the minority-language student makes dramatic initial progress in the
early elementary school years, but gradually falls behind in the middle school into
high school years, thus creating an cumulative achievement gap with each succeeding
year. It is important to understand that knowledge gained in one language transfers to
the second language. Thus, it is most efficient to teach academic content in the
student’s L1. “Postponing or interrupting academic development is likely to promote
academic failure in the long term” (Thomas & Collier, 1997, 43). Therefore, by
prioritizing L2 learning at the expense of academics and consequently eliminating one
of the dimensions of the prism, the student may never catch up with their native
English speaking peers linguistically, academically, and cognitively.
Cognitive Development (L1 and L2)
Cognitive development is an ongoing, subconscious process that starts at birth and
continues throughout one’s life. Language and cognition are deeply interrelated.
Language is the means of communicating cognitively. It is essential that cognitive
development continues through the child’s L1 through the elementary school years,
reaching the threshold by age 11 or 12 (Thomas & Collier, 1997, 43). In ESL pull-out
instruction, cognitive development is typically ignored. Instead of receiving
meaningful second language instruction through an academic context, the content is
overly structured and simplified
6. Effective program characteristics
As noted by Thomas and Collier, effective program characteristics in practice are what
determines a program’s success, and not the label of the program. Thomas and Collier
(1997) and August and Hakuta (1998) identify some of these attributes
 L1 instruction
28

29. Thomas and Collier’s findings show that students who emigrated to the United
States after having received several years of formal instruction in their home
language made greater progress than those who emigrated at a young age and
received all of their instruction in English. Similar patterns were seen in US-born
children educated in both L1 and L2. Children born in the US who received 5 or 6
years of education in both languages made more progress than those who only
received 2 or 3 years in their native language and the remaining years in English
only (Thomas and Collier, 1997, 49). Thus it is made perfectly clear that the more
the L1 is developed, the more successful the student will be academically in L2,
provided that both languages continue to develop at high cognitive levels.
Academic instruction through the medium of the L1 ensures that LEP students do
not fall behind their English-speaking peers in the school curriculum.
 L2 instruction
The English language should not be the object of instruction, as it is in ESL pull-
out programs. Most linguists and researchers agree that language is best acquired
through content, at an age when children are receptive to this. The portion of the
day taught in English must be taught through academic content, which allows the
student full-access to the curriculum. Making the content meaningful for the
students is the teacher’s responsibility. Providing plenty of comprehensible input
facilitates the acquisition process.
 Interactive, discovery learning
Thomas and Collier have found that using more current approaches to teaching has
had a more positive effect on student performance as opposed to traditional
approaches. Teachers and staff were provided with intensive training on
cooperative learning, thematic lessons, literacy development, technology
incorporation, critical thinking, learning strategies, among other themes. Student
performance was measured before and after the teacher training process. These
changes in teaching approaches resulted in an overall 8-10 NCE (Normal Curve
Equivalents) gain (Thomas and Collier, 1997, 50).
 Sociocultural support
29

30. In an attempt to measure sociocultural support, Thomas and Collier used
interviews with school staff to help identify places where students feel supported
and where students feel secure. It was found that academic achievement is highest
when the school staff feel positive about the school environment, provide support,
and when intercultural knowledge-building is provided (Thomas and Collier, 1997,
51).
 High expectations
Theories suggest that a school which holds high expectations of their students
results in higher achievement levels. It is not enough to merely hold high
expectations, but for the teachers and staff to make it a conscious, consistent, and
long-term effort to work toward classroom goals. The opposite hypothesis may
also be true, that teachers have low expectations because their students do not
achieve.
 Customized learning environment
The idea of having a customized learning environment is similar to doing a needs
analysis. A classroom is never completely homogeneous, and even less-so when
the classroom contains English language learners. No single approach is the
correct approach. It is up to the school and the teachers to determine which
educational approach or combination of approaches is best suited for each group of
students, according to their diverse needs.
 Use of native language and culture
The use of the students’ native language, even just when clarifying or reinforcing
points made in English, can be helpful to student success. Demonstrating
appreciation for the language and culture LM-LEP students bring to the classroom
creates a positive learning environment.
 Opportunities for practice
It is essential that the English language learners are given opportunities to speak.
This does not imply, however, that students should be forced to speak. As noted by
Krashen, months may elapse in the initial year before the child gains the
confidence to express themselves in their new language. In ELL classrooms, the
central protagonist should be the student, as opposed to the teacher. The teacher’s
30

31. role should be to create a positive learning environment, encouraging active
participation, and allowing mistakes. Any use of English should be praised.
Positive reinforcement can serve as a powerful motivator, especially among
school-age children.
 Systematic student assessment
Assessing student performance on a regular basis is helpful in knowing how the
student is performing, and whether or not they need additional help.
 Staff development
Without a doubt, in order to produce academically successful students, it is
necessary to have highly-qualified instructors with experience in teaching
language minority students. It is essential that the teachers be dedicated to the
success of each individual student.
 Home and parent development
Cognitive and academic growth should not be limited just to the classroom. Strong
home-school cooperation with communication between the parents and teachers
can attribute to stronger student performance. The more involved the parents are
with their children’s academics, the more moral and academic support they
provide, the higher their chances of success will be, as parents and teachers play
an important role in motivating and encouraging students.
7. Two-way bilingual education
In answering the question “Which bilingual program is the best / most
effective?”, the answer is uncertain. All programs can be effective if they meet the
linguistic, academic, and sociocultural needs of the student population. The
developers of the Prism Model, Thomas and Collier, favor two-way bilingual
education. As stated in section one, two-way programs are a form of maintenance
bilingual education in which speakers of the majority language (majority language –
eg. English) and minority language (target language – eg. Spanish) are placed together
in the same classroom and taught in both languages. The goals of these programs are
for the students to develop proficiency in two languages (the majority language and
the target language), to perform at or above grade level academically in both
31

32. languages, and to develop an understanding of pluriculturalism and respect for their
peers. These programs seek to establish a balance of these three dimensions.
Two-way bilingual education programs are mutually beneficial for both the
language minority and majority students. For the language minority students, the
language and culture they bring to the classroom is valued and respected as opposed
to seen as a handicap to be overcome or as inferior to the majority language. This
supportive environment increases self-esteem and willingness to succeed which is
reflected in student performance. The majority language students benefit by being
provided with the opportunity to learn a foreign language in an authentic immersion
context alongside native speakers. In an age of globalization, knowledge of more than
one language automatically puts one at an advantage. Bilingualism and
multilingualism provide the user with a wider range of opportunities. Furthermore,
placing these two groups of students together desegregates ELLs from their peers and
increases the nation’s overall language competence.
Two-way programs offer several other advantages over traditional ESL-pullout
and “English first” methods. In two-way classrooms, both groups of students are
exposed to their new language through meaningful academic content. Thus, ELLs do
not fall behind academically as a consequence of taking a one or two-year hiatus in
order to first study English. The “additive” nature of two-way programs allow the
students to learn another language while continuously developing their first language.
Although two-way programs share the same goals, significant implementation
variations exist among schools and districts which can cause differences in student
outcomes. For example, the percentage of target language used versus the percentage
of English used is one major variation. Two common patterns found in two-way
programs are the “90/10 model” and the “50/50 model” (Christian, 1994, 9). In the
90/10 model, instruction in the initial grades is about 90 percent target language, with
English gradually being introduced until reaching about 50/50 in the upper-elementary
school grades. The 50/50 model, as its name implies, provides instruction in 50
percent target language and 50 percent English, where the amount of each language
exposed to remains the same throughout the duration of the program.
32

33. Ideally, a two-way immersion program should have a balanced number of
target language students and majority language students. Unfortunately, this is not
always the case. For example, Coral Way Elementary is a neighborhood school,
located in the Little Havana neighborhood in Miami. The majority population of Little
Havana is of Cuban descent. As a result, the school’s student demographic is not that
diverse. Eighty-nine percent of its students are Hispanic, 8% Caucasian-non Hispanic,
1% Black-non Hispanic, and 2% Asian or multiracial. There are approximately 1600
students in the school, and one-third is considered Limited English Proficient (LEP).4
Despite this shortcoming, Coral Way has been successful in achieving its goals. As
stated on the school’s website, their goals are the following:
 Become proficient in speaking, reading and writing in two languages.
 Acquire a historical and global perspective that will help them to become
productive citizens of our country and world community.
 Develop an appreciation of diversity and be able to function in a multicultural
society.
 Develop critical thinking and leadership skills that will allow them to make a
difference in their community.
 Achieve the highest standards in all academic areas.
 Support members of our school community to face the challenges of the 21 st
century.
As the nation’s oldest two-way public school, established in 1963, the school has had
many years to establish itself and evolve into one of the country’s most successful
bilingual schools. In the 2009 school year, Coral Way achieved test scores higher than
the state and district averages in Math, Science, Reading, Writing, and Writing. 5
Conclusions
As can be judged by the United States history of language policy, bilingual
education is, and probably will remain, largely a political and ideological issue. It is
wishful thinking to assume that if we depoliticize language and education, bilingual
education will be widely accepted from a strictly scientific and pedagogical point of
4
http://coralwayelementary.dadeschools.net/About%20Us%202.htm
5
http://www.education.com/schoolfinder/us/florida/miami/coral-way-k-8-center/test-results/
33

34. view and as a means of education reform. Ideology almost always trumps science.
This does not mean, however, that research of various educational models based on
linguistic theory should cease. It is essential that students enrolled in both bilingual
and English immersion programs be evaluated and have their progress monitored for
as long as they stay within the school system. Second language learning and
acquisition are continuous, life-long processes. It is not enough to look at standardized
test results from only the first couple of years, as they can be misleading. It is much
more meaningful to look at test results from the secondary school years, where
language and academic content are at considerably higher cognitive levels.
It is necessary that misconceptions about bilingual education be addressed, the
most common being that bilingual programs do not teach the English language. It is
unlikely that all opposition to bilingual education is attributed to xenophobia or racial
prejudice. It is much more likely that the cause of opposition is ignorance regarding
the goals, functions, and results of bilingual education. All bilingual programs in the
United States include the acquisition of English as one of its goals. Research based in
sound linguistic theory has proven that children enrolled in well-developed, well-
implemented bilingual programs score as high, if not better, than children in all
English programs. Instruction in the L1 favors, not hinders, a child’s cognitive
development.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the needs of English
Language Learners. As the research has shown, there are hundreds of variables that
influence student performance that exist at the individual student level, family level,
school level, and classroom level. This paper does not endorse any specific type of
program for ELLs, but rather supports a wide range of programs with the ability to
choose. Parents should be able to choose what type of education their children
receive. Educational alternatives should be made available for when the mainstream
fails to address the needs of English learners. Federal, state, and local governments
have no place in prohibiting any form of bilingual education.
34

35. Bibliography
Bilingual education and bilingualism, 27 : Foundations of bilingual education and
bilingualism(2001). In Baker C. (Ed.), . Clevedon, , GBR: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity : U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon, ,
GBR: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Crawford, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for
English Language Learners. Washington, DC: National Association for Bilingual Education,
Center on Education Policy. 1-11.
Christian, D. (1994). Two-way Bilingual Education: Students Learning Through Two Languages. UC
Berkeley Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. 1-20.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual
Children. Bilingual Education Paper Series, 3 (2), 1-69.
Del Valle, S. (2003). Bilingual education and bilingualism, 40 : Language rights and the law in the
united states : Finding our voices. Clevedon, , GBR: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Fitzgerald, J. (1993). Views on Bilingualism in the United States: A Selective Historical Review.
Bilingual Research Journal, 17 (1&2), 35-56.
Hakuta, K. & Gould, L. (1987). Synthesis of research on bilingual education. Educational
Leadership, 44, 39-45.
Institute of Medicine Staff. (1998). In Diane August, Hakuta K. (Eds.), Educating language-
minority children. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. St. Louis : Elsevier.
35

36. National Research Council Staff. (1992). In Meyer M. M., Feinberg S. E. (Eds.), Assessing
evaluation studies : The case of bilingual education strategies. Washington, DC, USA:
National Academies Press.
Nieto, D. (2009). A Brief History of Bilingual Education in the United States. Perspectives on
Urban Education, Spring 2009, 61-72.
Ovando, C.J. (2003). Bilingual education in the United States: Historical Development and Current
Issues. Bilingual Research Journal, 27 (1), 1-24.
San Miguel, G., Jr. (2004). Contested policy : The rise and fall of federal bilingual education in the
united states, 1960-2001. College Station, TX, USA: University of North Texas Press.
Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (1997a). School effectiveness for language minority students.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/resource/effectiveness/index.html
36