The Amazing Case of Bilingual Education
Stephen Krashen Throws Down the Gauntlet for Teachers
The rationale for bilingual education is clear, the research is positive, and many people find the rationale reasonable? Why is there so much opposition to bilingual education?
Bilingual education has two goals: the acquisition of academic English and the development of the child's heritage language for the benefits of bilingualism and biculturalism. It is the first goal that concerns us here, because this is the goal that is of most concern to the public. By "English," I mean what Cummins (2000) means: Academic English, the language of school, e.g. the language used in story problems, social studies texts, and oral reports. In terms of this goal, one can define bilingual education as a means of using the child's first language in ways that accelerate second language acquisition.
There are two ways of using the first language in ways that accelerate second language acquisition: One is to teach subject matter in the first language, without translation. This provides background knowledge that makes the English children hear and read more comprehensible. If a child has had a good background in history, through education in the first language, that child will understand much more in a history class taught in English than a child without this background. More comprehension in history class means better history learning, more comprehensible input in English, and hence more English language acquisition.
Another way of using the first language to accelerate second language acquisition is to provide literacy instruction in the primary language. Developing first language literacy is a short cut to second language literacy: If it is the case we learn to read by reading, that we learn to read by making sense of what is on the page (Goodman, 1982; Smith, 1994), it follows that it is easier to learn to read in a language one understands. Once reading ability is established in the first language, it transfers rapidly to the second, even when the writing systems are different. This claim is supported by numerous case histories as well as empirical studies showing strong correlations between reading ability in the first and second language (Krashen, 1996, in press).
Of course, bilingual education does not consist only of subject matter and literacy taught in the primary language. English is introduced the first day, and subject matter in English is introduced as soon as it can be made comprehensible. Progress in English comes quickly: Typically, children in bilingual programs do about half of their subject matter work in English by grade three, and nearly all by grade five (Mitchell, Destino, and Karan, 1997).
A series of studies confirms that these two underlying principles make sense to a lot of people. Table 1 reviews studies in which subjects were asked if they felt that learning subject matter in the first language helps learning subject matter in the second language.
Table 1: Responses
to: Learning subject matter in the first language helps learning subject matter
in the second language. subjects support not support not sure Teachers (Shin
& Krashen, 1996) 70 15 15 Korean Parents
(Shin, 2000) 47 44 7 Latino Parents
(Shin, 2000) 34 33 33 Hmong
Parents (Shin, 2000) 60 25 15 Vietnamese
Parents (Young & Tran, 1999) 64 17 20 Administrators
(Shin, Anton, & Krashen, 1999) 78 12 10 Education
students in 80 6 15 Education grad
students (Lao, 2003) 60 12 29 Bilingual
education grad students (Lao, 2003) 94 0 6 Grad students,
other fields (Lao, 2003) 47 13 40 Note that this question captures only part of this principle: Learning subject matter in the first language results in greater subject matter knowledge, but in addition, greater subject matter knowledge will eventually make English input more comprehensible. The question asked in table 1, nevertheless, includes an important part of the rationale for bilingual education.
Table 2 shows that there is enormous agreement that developing literacy through the first language facilitates second language development. Even the least enthusiastic groups show over 50% agreement, with very few disagreeing.
Table 2: Responses
to: Developing literacy through the first language facilitates second language
literacy development. subjects support not support not sure Teachers (Shin
& Krashen, 1996) 74 13 13 Korean Parents
(Shin, 2000) 88 8 4 Hispanic
Parents (Shin, 2000) 53 26 21 Hmong
Parents (Shin, 2000) 52 30 14 Vietnamese
Parents (Young & Tran, 1999) 76 11 14 Administrators
(Shin, Anton & Krashen, 1999) 74 9 17 Education
students in 63 22 16 Education grad
students (Lao, 2003) 65 13 22 Bilingual
education grad students (Lao, 2003) 98 0 2 Grad students,
other fields (Lao, 2003) 61 17 22 The framework presented here helps to explain cases of apparent success without bilingual education, why many people were able to acquire English without help in the primary language. Second language acquirers who did well in English academic language development and did well in school in the United States have frequently had a solid education in their primary language before coming to the United States, which included subject matter and literacy development in the primary language, and in some cases extensive formal instruction in English as a second language. They had, in other words, "de facto" bilingual education. In addition to case histories (Krashen, 1996, Tse, 2001, Ramos and Krashen, 1997, 2001), studies also report positive correlations between years of education in the home country and English proficiency among immigrants (Chiswick, 1991; Espendshade and Fu, 1997).
Despite the appeal of the underlying principles, and the strong supporting evidence, bilingual education has been dismantled by voters in California and Arizona, and there is evidence that public opinion is more negative toward bilingual education than it has ever been (Krashen, 2002). Why should this be so?
Ignorance of the research
An obvious reason is ignorance of the research on bilingual education. Few people are aware that bilingual education has been such a success story in the scientific research. It is not surprising that the public is uninformed: such reports are infrequently covered in the media (McQuillan and Tse,1996).
Especially damaging to the image of bilingual education are media reports claiming that dismantling of bilingual education has resulted in "skyrocketing" test scores in California, with no consideration of other interpretations (Thompson, DeCerbo, Mahoney, and MacSwan, 2000). There has been no mention of the fact that test scores went up for students still in bilingual education in California (because of special waivers). There has also been no mention of the fact that inflation of test scores is typical and expected after a new test is introduced. We can expect test scores to increase when the same test is given several years in a row, when there is a great deal of effort devoted to test preparation (which may or may not have anything to do with increased learning), and when there are severe punishments for declining scores and rewards for improved scores, which may even include economic rewards for schools and/or educators.
Ignorance of the nature and goals of bilingual education
Another possible reason for bilingual education's failure in public opinion is that few people are aware of the goals of bilingual education and how it achieves these goals. According to the Los Angeles Times (April 13, 1998), two-thirds of those who supported California's proposition 227 did so because “English is so important.” They were apparently unaware of the fact that English language development is an important goal of bilingual education, and that properly organized bilingual programs succeed in teaching English.
There is also evidence suggesting that many people are not aware that bilingual education incorporates the underlying principles they approve of. In several studies, there was an interesting mismatch between attitudes toward the principles underlying bilingual education and actually doing bilingual education in school. While parents typically supported both the theory and the practice (Shin, 2000), teachers and administrators were more supportive of the theory than the practice. Seventyfour percent of teachers studied in Shin and Krashen (1996) supported the principles, but only 43% approved of the use of the first language in school among English learners. Similarly, 83% of administrators approved of the principles but only 57% approved of the use of the first language (Shin, Anton, and Krashen, 1999).
In several studies, respondents who agreed with the principles also felt that children would acquire the second language faster in an all-second language environment (Shin and Krashen, 1996; Shin et. al., 1999; Lao, 2003, Ramos, 2003).
These reactions could mean that respondents were not aware that bilingual programs actually use the underlying principles. They could, however, also mean that subjects felt that the effect of immersion was stronger than the positive effects of the use of the first language. If so, subjects might be aware of the theory but not the research.
What is the solution?
This is truly an amazing situation. Bilingual education has a solid basis in both theory and research, the theory makes sense to a lot of people, and yet bilingual education is unpopular and becoming more unpopular.
Obviously, the solution is in the dissemination of information. The public needs to be informed that English is a major goal of bilingual education, that the underlying principles described above are the pillars of bilingual education, and that research confirms that bilingual education works. The results of studies involving teachers, administrators, and students in education suggest that serious information gaps might also exist within the education profession.
How can we explain this information gap? Is it due to a stubborn disinformation campaign on the part of newspapers and other news media to deliberately destroy bilingual education? Or is it due to the failure of the profession to present its side of the story to reporters? There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence in support of the latter; several reporters have told me that they receive frequent communications from the organizations opposing bilingual education, sometimes more than one per day, and rarely receive anything from organizations that support bilingual education.
In addition, if they consult the professional literature, reporters and education professionals in other areas can easily get the impression that there is little support for bilingual education. While the opposition maintains a steady flow of articles and papers attacking bilingual education (see e.g. Read Perspectives, a journal devoted entirely to attacks on bilingual education), there appears to be only modest interest within the profession in dealing with these attacks and in presenting the compelling evidence that refutes them (but see e.g. Petrovic, 1997; Crawford, 2000; Cummins, 2000; Thompson et. al., 2001, Tse, 2001). For many writers and scholars, it appears to be business as usual, with a focus on peripheral issues that are reasonable to pursue during peacetime, but not during times of war, when the existence of bilingual education is threatened.
Because of the negative press, and continued defeats for bilingual education at the polls, we can only expect public attitudes to become even more negative toward bilingual education in the future. This will, in turn, encourage even more attacks and initiatives and will insure their success. Without increased focus of academics to answer criticisms, and a serious, dedicated and organized campaign to explain and defend bilingual education at the national level, in a very short time advocates of bilingual education will have nothing left to defend. Students who would benefit greatly by bilingual education will be denied it by an electorate who are ignorant of its nature, goals, and successes.
References
Appel, R. 1984. Immigrant Children Learning Dutch. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
Burnham-Massey, L. and M. Pina. 1990. "Effects of bilingual instruction on English academic achievement of LEP students." Reading Improvement, 27(2): 129-132.
Chiswick. B. 1991. "Speaking, reading, and earnings among low-skilled immigrants." Journal of Labor Economics, 9: 149-170.
Crawford, J. 2000. At War with Diversity: U.S. Language Policy in a Age of Anxiety. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
De la Garza, J. and M. Medina. 1985. "Academic achievement as influenced by bilingual instruction for Spanish-dominant Mexican-American children." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 7(3): 247-259.
Espenshade, T. and H. Fu. 1997. "An analysis of English-language proficiency among U.S. immigrants." American Sociological Review, 62: 288-305.
Goodman, K. 1982. Language, Literacy and Learning. London: Routledge Kagan Paul.
Krashen, S. 1999. Condemned without a Trial: Bogus Arguments against Bilingual Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishing Company.
Krashen, S. 2002. "Evidence suggesting that public opinion is becoming more negative: A discussion of the reasons, and what we can do about it." http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/Krash11.htm
Krashen, S. "Three roles for reading for minority-language children" In G.Garcia (Ed.), English Learners: Reaching the Highest Level of English Literacy. International Reading Association. In press.
Lao, C. 2003. "A Study of Graduate Students’ Attitudes Toward Bilingual Education." Mosaic.
McQuillan, J., and L. Tse.1996. "Does research really matter? An analysis of media opinion on bilingual education, 1984-1994." Bilingual Research Journal, 20 (1): 1-27.
Mitchell, D., T. Destino, and R. Karan.1997. Evaluation of English Language Development Programs in the Santa Ana Unified School District. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, University of California, Riverside.
Mortensen, E. 1984. "Reading achievement of native Spanish-speaking elementary students in bilingual vs. monolingual programs." Bilingual Review, 11(3): 31-36.
Oller, K. and Eilers, R. (Eds.) 2002. Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Petrovic, J. 1997. "Balkanization, bilingualism, and comparisons of language situations at home and abroad." Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2,3): 233-254.
Ramos, F. 2003. "Pre-service teachers' attitudes toward theoretical and practical aspects of native language instruction in the schooling of language minority students." Mosaic.
Ramos, F. and S. Krashen. 1997. "Success without bilingual education? Some European cases of de facto bilingual education." CABE Newsletter 20,6:7,19.
Ramos, F. and S. Krashe. 2001. "Easing the rows to hoe: The presence of 'de facto' bilingual education in self-reported cases of second language acquisition." NABE News, 24(6):32-33.
Shin, F. 2000. "Parent attitudes toward the principles of bilingual education and children's participation in bilingual programs." Journal of Intercultural Studies, 21(1): 93-99.
Shin, F. and S. Krashen. 1996. "Teacher attitudes toward the principles of bilingual education and toward students' participation in bilingual programs: Same or different?" Bilingual Research Journal, 20(1): 45-53.
Shin, F., M. Anton and S. Krashen, S. 1999. "K-12 Administrators’ views on bilingual education." NABE News, 22(8):11-12,29.
Smith, F. 1994. Understanding Reading. Fifth Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thompson, M., K. DiCerbo, K. Mahoney, and J. MacSwan. 2002. "Exito in California? A validity critique of language program evaluations and analysis of English learner test scores." Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(7). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n7/.
Tse, L.2001. "Why Don't They Learn English?" Separating Fact from Fallacy in the U.S. Languge Debate. New York: Teachers College Press.
Young, R and M. Tran. 1999. Vietnamese parent attitudes toward bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 23 (2,3): 225-233.
To be published in Mosaic
Story by
Dr. Stephen Krashen
2002 ESL MiniConference Online
krashen@usc.edu
University of Southern California (USC)