Bilingual Education

Abstract

This article describes the history, theories, and research of bilingual education practice and describes the most common program types currently utilized in K–12 public education. "Bilingual education" is a term used to describe a wide variety of programs that utilize two languages to teach academic content. Some bilingual programs are designed to develop full bilingualism, or the ability to use two languages proficiently; others use the native language to facilitate the acquisition of English. The history of bilingual education is one characterized by controversy and wavering support for the use of two languages in public schools. Modern debates focus on whether demographic trends that are making the U.S. more diverse indicate the need for more or less native language support in the classroom. An important factor in deciding this question is whether bilingual programs are more effective than English-only programs in raising student academic achievement.

Overview

The education of "bilingual" students in the U.S. has always been closely tied to political, economic, and social concerns. As a nation of immigrants, the U.S. was founded by colonists from multiple language backgrounds and nationalities. While early private schools were quickly established to teach colonial children, schools were generally segregated by communities so that students studied in their native languages (Brisk, 1998). As immigrant communities (mainly from Europe) vied for political and economic power in the new world, language and nationality differences raised tensions between neighbors. This in turn led to calls for new immigrants to assimilate by learning the language and customs of earlier arrivals. For example, in colonial Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin complained that an influx of German speaking immigrants would threaten the ability of the English in the settlement to maintain their language and government. He was so worried about this prospect that he established one of the first groups of English language schools for Germans with the hope of helping them to better assimilate into the English-speaking culture (Crawford, 1998).

Various waves of immigration throughout U.S. history have raised similar concerns and have often dovetailed with national political discussions about the role of education in building and maintaining a democracy, a pluralistic society or a skilled workforce. The result has been that local, state, and federal education policies have frequently vacillated between supporting and opposing bilingual education. For instance, in the early to middle nineteenth century, many schools taught using two languages, such as German-English schools in the Midwest or French-English schools in Louisiana. Yet beginning in the late 1880s and extending into the twentieth century, many states enacted laws to require English to be the only language of instruction (Brisk, 1981, 1998). While wavering political support characterizes the history of bilingual education, the common thread in educating U.S. bilinguals has been that learning English has been deemed important. Thus, the definition of a bilingual program in the U.S. generally includes teaching English as one of the two languages of the curriculum.

The modern history of bilingual education begins in earnest in the 1960s. In the political climate of the times in which many women and African-Americans were advocating for equality and civil rights, linguistic minorities began to demand their right to preserve their languages and cultures as well as to receive quality English instruction that would guarantee them equal access to educational and economic opportunities. They argued that equality bilingual instruction could provide one means to this end (Brisk, 1981; 1998).

In response to these concerns, the Bilingual Education Act, formally called Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was passed in 1968. This act provided for the education of students of "limited English speaking ability" (Wiese & Garcia, 1998, p. 1). Though the act did not prescribe a particular type of program to schools, it included bilingual education as an approved option for educating these students (Wiese & Garcia, 1998).

Also important in the movement to obtain educational equality for bilingual students was the Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols. In this landmark case, non-English-speaking Chinese students sued the San Francisco Unified School District for not providing them with English language instruction. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all students have a right to equality in education, and non-English-speaking students are not given an equal education just because they attend the same schools and use the same textbooks as native English speakers. Rather, the Court affirmed that English language learners (ELLs) need specialized instruction in English if they are to reap the benefits of their education (Lau v. Nichols, 1974). As a result of this case, the door was opened for the implementation of a wider variety of programs to serve bilingual students (Brisk, 1998; Wiese & Garcia, 1998).

Despite apparent gains for advocates of bilingual education, many vocal critics opposed the use of native languages in the classroom. In the 1980s and 1990s, organizations such as English First and U.S. English called for English to be a national language—and the only language of instruction in public schools—in order to preserve national unity ("About English First," n.d.; "Why Is Official English Necessary?," n.d.). In 1997, Spanish immigrant parents in Los Angeles complained that their children were not learning English in bilingual programs (English for the Children, 1997). Learning of this issue, an independent activist named Ron Unz founded English for the Children and drafted the now-famous California ballot initiative known as Proposition 227. This proposition, which passed in 1998 with 61% of the vote, required that English be the only language of instruction in California's schools, effectively eliminating bilingual education as an option for most students. The success of the measure led English for the Children to sponsor similar initiatives on several state ballots with varying degrees of success. Along with these setbacks for bilingual education, federal legislation during this time also shifted away from only supporting bilingual education to accepting English-only instruction (Wiese & Garcia, 1998).

Bilingual education remains controversial. With research showing the cognitive benefits of obtaining bilingualism (Bialystok, Craik, et al., 2005), an increasingly global society offering greater economic opportunities for those who can speak more than one language, and the U.S. population becoming more diverse, supporters of bilingual education say that their programs are the best choice for meeting the needs of the population today and in the future (Krashen, 1997, 2006; Thomas & Collier, 2002). On the other hand, English-only advocates continue to be active. They look at U.S. Census Bureau reports showing that more than three hundred different languages are spoken in the United States (Ryan, 2013), and they say what is needed is a common language for communication among peoples. They say that when governments provide multilingual services, they send the message to immigrants that one does not need to learn English in order to live in the U.S. Since they believe this is wrong, they argue that multilingual services—including bilingual education—should be replaced by English-only programs that emphasize the fastest possible acquisition of English ("Why Is Official English Necessary?," n.d.). It is likely, given demographic realities and conflicting political ideologies, that the debate surrounding bilingual education will continue for the foreseeable future.

Applications

Program Models. By definition, bilingual education is education that teaches academic content using two languages. However, beyond this basic definition, there is considerable variety in how a bilingual program actually looks. Many differences exist because student populations are so diverse. Students not only come from many language backgrounds but also differ in age, socioeconomic status, level of literacy, and amount of formal education in their first language. They have experienced differing degrees of parental support, and their own motivation to learn a new language varies. Programs also differ due to regional differences such as the total number of ELLs within the local educational system and the amount and quality of training on linguistically different learners that teachers have had (Brisk, 1998; Genesee, 1999).

Although bilingual education programs are diverse, most programs share at least some basic tenets. These are that bilingual children should achieve academic proficiency to the same level or better than monolingual, native English speakers; that bilingual children need cross-cultural as well as linguistic training, and that both languages—the students' native language and the target language—have value in helping the child to learn (Brisk, 1998; Center for Equity & Excellence in Education, 1996; Genesee, 1999).

In identifying different models of bilingual education, an important characteristic is whether the school wants students to achieve full bilingualism or merely acquire the target language. To be fully bilingual, students must be able to read, write, speak, and listen in both languages. Therefore, programs with this goal tend to be longer term and to offer subject content in both languages of instruction. For instance, in the dual immersion model, students from two language backgrounds attend school together and spend half of their day learning in one language and half in the other. Developmental bilingual education programs are similar in that they support full bilingualism by teaching in two languages; however, only students from one language group are taught in the program. On the other hand, programs that have target language acquisition as a goal do not aim to maintain a student's first language. Rather, these programs use the student's native language to support and enhance the instruction in the target language. While such programs vary considerably in length, they tend to be shorter and are called transitional programs because their main goal is for students to learn English rapidly so that they can be transferred to mainstream classrooms (Krashen, 1997; Genesee, 1999).

A few special cases of bilingual education exist for students who are not struggling in English. One of these is heritage language programs, which have the primary goal of preserving a student's native language because it would otherwise be threatened by acculturation (e.g., Native American languages). A second case is that of foreign language immersion programs for native English speakers. In these programs, students learn in English and the target language with the goal of achieving full bilingualism (Krashen, 1997; Genesee, 1999).

The teaching methodologies used within bilingual programs are designed to give students ample opportunities to interact with the language through meaningful activities. Hands-on lessons, pair and small group work, and communicative activities using key vocabulary are some of the common ways language is taught. A specialized methodology called Sheltered Content Instruction integrates language development goals with content instruction goals by modifying grade level content to match students' proficiency levels. Reading materials may be supplemented by visual aids such as graphs, models or hands-on activities. Key vocabulary is emphasized and repeated to help students' acquire the language of science, social studies and other content subjects. All instruction is "scaffolded," meaning that teachers begin teaching at the students' current knowledge base and then gradually introduce more difficult content and vocabulary (Genesee, 1999).

Language Acquisition Theories. Because bilingual education is politically controversial, it is useful to examine the theories of language acquisition that are used to justify it as the best choice for teaching bilingual students. The first theory is that of comprehensible input (Krashen, 2006). Language acquisition experts believe that one of the most important factors in learning a second language is the degree to which the new language is comprehensible, or easy to understand. Bilingual education proponents believe that using a student's native language is the best way to ensure that content knowledge is comprehensible. To understand this point, consider your understanding of a complex scientific topic such as photosynthesis or genetics. Then consider learning this topic in a foreign language such as Russian or Arabic. If you only heard the teacher speaking about the topic but had no idea what the topic was, you might not be able to grasp much of the information. However, if someone told you that the topic was photosynthesis, you could draw upon your knowledge of the concept to help you identify vocabulary for terms with which you were familiar in your own language.

A second important theory of acquisition is the idea that literacy skills are transferable from one language to another. Research has shown that students who are literate in their own language can more quickly learn to read and write in a second language (Bialystok, Luk, & Kwan, 2005; Cummins, 1981; Greene, 1998; Slavin & Cheung, 2005). Acquisition experts believe that this is because once one knows the principles of reading, one can read in the new language without having to be taught the concept of reading. Therefore, many bilingual education proponents believe that children who are illiterate should first be taught in their own language and then, once the concepts of literacy are grasped, begin to study in the second language.

A third important theory of language acquisition is that language learning involves more than just understanding new vocabulary and grammatical points (Brisk, 1998; Perez, 1998). Because languages are integrally connected to culture, acquisition experts point out that second language learners must be educated about the social and cultural uses of new linguistic forms. Knowledge of this nature includes understanding the contexts in which certain kinds of vocabulary can be used (e.g., slang can be used on the playground but not in the classroom), being familiar with English discourse structures (including genres and linear patterns of organization), and being able to compensate when language knowledge is incomplete. In addition to its cultural ties, language is also deeply connected to personal identity. In places where one culture dominates another economically as well as linguistically, members of the minority group may have less motivation to learn the dominant culture's language, especially if they perceive that the goal of the dominant culture is to eradicate the minority heritage or identity. Because of these sociolinguistic theories of language acquisition, bilingual education proponents say that an environment where two languages are valued and where teachers have training in cross-cultural dialogue is essential for ensuring the highest levels of educational achievement, and they believe that bilingual education is the best model for providing this environment.

Viewpoints

A major question for educators, administrators, and policymakers is whether bilingual education is more or less effective than English-only instruction in achieving academic goals. A related question is whether particular program models are more or less effective than others. Researchers have found it difficult to answer these questions for several reasons. Some of these include: problems with pre- and post-testing (e.g., should students be tested in English or the native language?), selection biases impacting who enrolls in certain kinds of programs, the limited availability of certain programs for certain learners, and small samples sizes (Slavin & Cheung, 2005).

Despite the obstacles, a few meta-analyses—studies that review multiple research findings in order to identify common trends—indicate that bilingual programs are more effective than their English-only counterparts. Greene (1998), in a review of eleven studies comparing bilingual and English-only programs, found that children in bilingual programs performed significantly better on standardized tests than children who were only taught in English. Slavin and Cheung (2005) evaluated studies of bilingual and English-only reading programs and concluded that though the number of high quality studies is small, the evidence tends to favor bilingual methods, especially those in which students learn reading in their native language and English at different times during the day (e.g., developmental bilingual education, dual-immersion).

Thomas and Collier (2002) also found that developmental bilingual or dual immersion programs were highly effective. In a five year study that examined the effect of program type on ELLs long-term achievement, they found that one-way and two-way developmental programs were the only programs they studied that were successful in helping ELLs to reach academic benchmarks in all subjects in both the first and second languages. In general, their research found that longer term programs such as these are more effective than shorter ones at closing the achievement gap between ELLs and native English speakers. This was especially true for students who had fewer than four years of formal schooling in their native language.

On the other hand, these researchers also cautioned that programs are not successful merely because they carry a bilingual label. Rather, programs must be well-implemented; teachers must be trained to use the model; administrative support must be present; there must be an academic focus that encourages full realization of a student's academic and linguistic development; parental support and engagement must be present; and instructional time must be used effectively. These factors, which are also the general characteristics identified as being important in all effective schools, have a great influence on the relative success of any kind of bilingual program.

Terms & Concepts

Bilingualism: Bilingualism refers to an individual's ability to proficiently use two languages. Students who are fully bilingual should be able to read, write, speak, and listen in two languages.

Proposition 227: California's Proposition 227 passed in 1998. The initiative mandated that English be the only language of instruction in California's public schools. The measure required initial placement of non-English-speaking students to be in one-year sheltered content immersion programs.

Developmental Bilingual Education: Developmental, or late-exit, programs are used to teach students of one language background. Instruction in literacy and other academic subjects are given in both the student's native language and the target language in order to achieve bilingualism. While programs typically begin in kindergarten, they can extend for as many years as the school can support.

Dual Immersion Programs: In dual immersion, or two-way bilingual education, programs, 50% of the students in the program speak one language, and 50% of the students speak a second language. Students spend one half of their day studying academic content in their native language, and the other half of the day studying in the second language. Research indicates that this model is quite effective.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the 1968 comprehensive federal education legislation that provides guidelines and funding for federally regulated education programs. Under the administration of George Bush, the Act was dubbed the "No Child Left Behind Act" because it set academic proficiency goals for all students. Under this version of the bill, the Bilingual Education Act was eliminated in favor of provisions that favored English language acquisition.

English Language Learners (ELLs): The term English language learners defines students who have another language as their first language and are now learning English. The term is preferred over second language learners because some English language learners may already speak two or more languages and so English is not their second language.

English-Only Instruction: In English-only or English immersion programs, students may share the same language background or they may be from different backgrounds. English is the only medium of instruction though academic content is modified to the students' level of proficiency.

Heritage Language Programs: Heritage Language Programs serve English-speaking students with non-English-language backgrounds or non-English-language speakers. The goal of a heritage language program is to preserve or show respect for a student's non-English language and culture. Many heritage language programs were developed to preserve Native American languages. Instruction is given in the target language with the goal of the students becoming bilingual.

Linguistically Different Learners: The term linguistically different learners describes students who come from different language backgrounds.

Lau v. Nichols: In this landmark Supreme Court case of 1974, non-English-speaking Chinese students sued the San Francisco Unified School District for not providing them with English language instruction. The Court ruled that under the 1964 Civil Rights Act all students are guaranteed the right to meaningfully participate in the educational system. The court ruled that because "Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach," to require that students have English before they can meaningfully participate in education makes "a mockery of public education." As a result of this case, many districts established bilingual education programs.

Sheltered Content Instruction: Sheltered Content Instruction is a specialized teaching methodology for teaching academic content and language development to English language learners. In this methodology, teachers modify grade level content to match students' proficiency levels.

Sociolinguistics: Sociolinguistics is the study of how culture and context influence language and behavior.

Transitional Programs: Transitional, or early-exit, programs are the most common form of bilingual education in the U.S. The goal of a transitional program is for students to acquire English as quickly as possible. To that end, the student's native language is used to teach literacy and core content in the primary grades while the student simultaneously studies English.

Bibliography

About English First. (n.d.) Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://englishfirst.org/d/about

Almaguer, I., & Esquierdo, J. (2013). Cultivating bilingual learners' language arts knowledge: A framework for successful teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 6 , 3–18. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90564967&site=ehost-live

Berens, M. S., Kovelman, I., & Petitto, L.-A. (2013). Should bilingual children learn reading in two languages at the same time or in sequence? Bilingual Research Journal, 36 , 35–60. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88924018&site=ehost-live

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Grady, C., Chau, W., Ishii, R., Gunji, A., & Pantev, C. (2005). Effect of bilingualism on cognitive control in the Simon task: Evidence from MEG. NeuroImage, 24 , 40–49. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from EBSCO online database Biological Abstracts. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bxh&AN=17123114&site=ehost-live

Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9 , 43–61. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15840640&site=ehost-live

Brisk, M. E. (1981). Language policies in American education. Journal of Education, 163 , 3–15. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5660829&site=ehost-live

Brisk, M. E. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Crawford, J. (1998). Anatomy of the English-only movement: Social and ideological sources of language restrictionism in the United States. In D. A. Kibbee (Ed.), Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights (pp. 96–122). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America.

Cummins, J. (1981). Empirical and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal of Education, 163 , 16–30. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5660837&site=ehost-live

English for the children. (1997). Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://www.onenation.org

Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: Envisioning a heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48 , 454–479. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=97619089&site=ehost-live

Fránquiz, M. E. (2012). Key concepts in bilingual education: Identity texts, cultural citizenship, and humanizing pedagogy. New England Reading Association Journal, 48 , 32–42. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=81281407&site=ehost-live

Genesee, F. (Ed.). (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED428569.pdf

George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. (1996). Promoting excellence: Ensuring academic success for English language learners: Guiding principles. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http://ceee.gwu.edu/CEEE%20Guide-Princ-010909.pdf

Greene, J. P. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/biling.pdf

Kim, Y. K., Hutchison, L. A., & Winsler, A. (2015). Bilingual education in the United States: An historical overview and examination of two-way immersion. Educational Review, 67(2), 236-252. doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.865593. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=101018118&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Krashen, S. (1997). Bilingual education. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.nabe.org/BilingualEducation/

Krashen, S. (2006). Bilingual education accelerates English language development. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/krashen%5Fintro.pdf

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973%5F72%5F6520

Menken, K. (2013). Emergent bilingual students in secondary school: Along the academic language and literacy continuum. Language Teaching, 46 , 438–476. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90398244&site=ehost-live

Olague, R., & Ekiaka Nzai, V. (2013). Bilingual education: In need of a new political strategy. Journal of Latinos & Education, 12 , 271–276. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89029136&site=ehost-live

Perez, B. (Ed.). (1998). Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ryan, C. (2013, August). Language use in the United States: 2011 (American Community Survey Report No. ACS-22). Retrieved October 31, 2014, from http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2013/acs/acs-22.pdf

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75 , 247–284. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17717496&site=ehost-live

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475048.pdf

Why is Official English necessary? (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.usenglish.org/view/10

Wiese, A.-M., & Garcia, E. E. (1998). The Bilingual Education Act: Language minority students and equal educational opportunity. Bilingual Research Journal, 22 , 1–18. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3066415&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. 6th ed. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Brisk, M. E., & Harrington, M. (2007). Literacy and bilingualism: A handbook for all teachers (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2005). Dual language essentials for teachers and administrators. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2006). Teaching reading and writing in Spanish and English in bilingual and dual language classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kibler, A. K., & Roman, D. (2013). Insights into professional development for teachers of English language learners: A focus on using students' native languages in the classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 36 , 187–207. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90135235&site=ehost-live

Reyhnor, J. (2006). Education and language restoration. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers.

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2004). How do English language learners learn to read? Educational Leadership, 61 , 52–57. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12472246&site=ehost-live

Whitmore, K. F., & Crowell, C. G. (2005/2006). Bilingual education students reflect on their language education: Reinventing a classroom 10 years later. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49 , 270–285. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19051977&site=ehost-live