The U.S. Congress has passed a
considerable amount of non-discrimination legislation in the past 30 years.
Many of these laws and U.S. Supreme Court challenges to them focus on guaranteeing
that students in public schools receive a meaningful education. Whether
language minority (LM) students in public schools receive an education
that conforms to the intent of the laws passed by Congress, and to the
clarification of the law by the U.S. Supreme Court, is still an issue in
2002. When looking at statistics of retention and dropout rates for LM
students, it is obvious that schools are not complying with the law.
Even though language minority students are legally entitled to an education
which is the same as their English-speaking peers, there is still great
discussion not only about how to teach these children but also whether
to provide any special language support to them at all. In this era of
high stakes testing and increased accountability, what is the best way
to ensure that students who enter the public school systems without fluency
in English are getting equal access to the curriculum? Decision-makers
often make choices in deciding how or whether to implement language support
programs for language minority students based on factors other than what
is best for the students.
BACKGROUND
Language
Minority and Limited English Proficient (LEP) are terms used to describe
children who enter school with a language background other than English.
The majority of these students use another language at home. These LM students
enter school with little or no English even though a large percentage of
them were born in this country (Krashen, 1999; Nieto, 2000; Valdes, 2001).
Once given this label or classification, students usually maintain this
designation until they are able to participate fully in the school curriculum
(Office of Civil Rights [OCR], 2001).
Federal
law guarantees equal rights starting with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution,
which grants that no person will be denied equal protection under the law.
In 1964 The Civil Rights Act, Title VI, clarifies that equal protection
under the law applies to all people regardless of race, color and national
origin. When educating children with a different home language became
a challenge to schools, Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act in
1968. This Act recognized that different techniques and methods must
be employed in order to provide equal access to education for LM students.
Those methods could include using the native language as a vehicle for
gaining competency in English (OCR, 2001). Also in 1974,
Congress passed the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) which stated
that educational agencies must take measures to overcome language barriers
that "impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs."
(OCR, 2001).
The law protecting
language minority rights came under scrutiny again in 1974 with the US
Supreme Court case of Lau v. Nichols. This case clarified
that offering a curriculum in a language that the students did not understand
did not constitute equal access to education. In 1981, Castaneda v. Pickard
provided a framework for language support programs which would conform
with the law and would provide access to a meaningful education for LM
students.
These two Supreme
Court cases provide the legal framework for equal access to education for
language minority students (Arce, 1998; Crawford, 1999; Valdes, 2001).
Lau v. Nichols ruled that limited English proficient children who
were schooled in English were denied access to an equal education since
they could not understand the language of instruction. But Lau did
not provide any guidelines for program design or suggestions for remedying
the language situation. Castaneda v Pickard provides guidance on
how schools can implement Lau v. Nichols and fulfill their legal
responsibility to language minority children. Under Castaneda the
school system is required to provide a program for LM students which is
based on sound research and theory. Also, the practices which systems
or schools implement have to be effective and they have to have demonstrable
results. Therefore, through these two Supreme Court cases, the framework
for educating language minority students is set.
THE ISSUE
By
1981 the legal basis and the academic framework for providing a meaningful
education to language minority students was in place. Yet in 2002
the discussion of bilingual education versus ESL versus no language support
is still an unresolved issue (Arce, 1998; Boyd, 1994; Collier, 2002; Crawford,
1999; Cummings, 2001; Krashen 1999; Nieto, 2000). The language access
problem has not gone away and the challenge is still there and growing.
In the years since Lau v. Nichols, the number of language minority
students has grown considerably. Recent trends in immigration, both
legal and illegal, show that economic immigration has been on a steady
increase for the past twenty years and continues to grow. Also, the
birthrate of immigrants is high (Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001. By 2030,
40% of school age children will be language minority (Collier & Thomas,
2002). In California, the state where Lau v. Nichols
started, it is projected that Hispanic students will form 50% of the school
population by 2030 (Arce, 1998; Cummins, 2001).
The
demographics have also changed. The public schools find themselves
with more minority students, more students entering with little or no English,
and more students living in poverty (Hodgkinson, 2001). Today the
number of language minority students in schools across the US is more than
3 million with 1.5 million in California. The majority of these students
speak Spanish (77%), live in urban areas and attend high poverty schools
(Hodgkinson, 2001; Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001). Also, estimates put
the number of students who are not receiving the language assistance they
need in order to access the curriculum on an equal basis to their native
English-speaking peers at 2/3 of language minority students (Valdes, 2001).
The lack of services
to the language minority school population is obvious when the dropout
and grade retention rates are looked at (Krashen1999; Kozol 1991; Tse,
2001; Valdes, 2001). Hispanic students are more likely than their
English-speaking peers to have repeated a year between grades 1?3.
(Valdes, 2001) Hispanic students with non-fluent English skills drop
out at a higher rate than their English-speaking peers (Boyd, 1994; Krashen,
1999).
Not only is the
growing number of language minority students of increasing concern to school
administrators, but the institution of high stakes testing changes the
dynamics of the situation. Until recently, standardized tests were
for students designated as fluent English speakers. When the LM students
were outside the testing framework schools were not held accountable for
their progress (Cummins, 2001; Tharpe, 1997). Now that scores of
all students will count towards accreditation and/or evaluation of the
school and school programs, language minority students’ lack of academic
progress is coming into the foreground of academic discussions. As
recently as last week, the New York Times reported that 31% of New York’s
LEP students, who had to take the Regents English exam in order to graduate,
dropped out of school because they did not have the academic English needed
to pass the exam (Medina, 2002). Last year was the first year all
students were required to pass the English exam in order to graduate.
The dropout rate of LEP students in New York schools increased from 17%
to 31% with that change in policy (Medina, 2002) These statistics show
that schools need to examine why these LM students are not achieving.
Another issue
in this discussion of language minority students receiving equal access
to the curriculum is what kind of program best serves non-English speaking
students (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Cloud, et al, 2000; Collier, 1995; Cummins,
2001; Genesee, 1987; Krashen, 1997; Nieto,1999; Spangeberg-Urbschat, 1994;
Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001). Each program option for the language minority
student has to be looked at in its political as well as the academic context
(Arce, 1998; Tse, 2001).
One of the most
controversial methods proposed for promoting equal access to education
for language minority students, is the English Only approach. This
approach is based on two main premises: 1) children spend too much time
in bilingual education (learning in their home language) and do not progress
in English; and 2) in past generations immigrants came to this country
and became fully functional citizens by learning English and recent immigrants
should do the same (Porter, 1999/2000). Porter is a vocal supporter
of the Unz Initiative in California (Proposition 227) which gives language
minority students one year of intensive ESL before they are mainstreamed.
According to Porter, this approach will lead to higher academic achievement
by getting language minority students into the classrooms where they will
be exposed to the mainstream curriculum faster. Arguments for English
Only imply that the U.S. is a melting pot and that non-English speakers
need to shed their old ways and join in the American way in order to show
loyalty to their new country. People who don’t learn English are
seen as unpatriotic. Proposition 227 builds on fear of the culturally and
linguistically different. It characterizes bilingual education programs
as a threat to national unity (Arce, 1998; Tse, 2001; Nieto, 1999; Valdes,
2001). The Unz initiative puts a negative and punitive spin on the issue
by explicitly mandating that language minority children not receive bilingual
education and that teachers, staff and administrators will be held personally
liable if they provide bilingual instruction to language minority students
(Arce, 1998).
Opposition to
the English Only approach centers on the legal ramifications. (Crawford,
1999; Krashen, 1997) as well as the lack of academic support for such an
approach (Cloud,et all, 2000; Collier,1995; Genesee, 1987; Krashen,
1999, Tharpe, 1997). Language acquisition theory points out that
social language can develop in 1-3 years. With social English, children
can mix in social, conversational contexts. To develop proficiency
in academic language children need 5-10 years of language support.
Children who have one year of English might be able to speak and understand
on a social level but they will not be able to use the academic language,
which the content areas in school demand (Spangeberg-Urbschat, 1994).
In other words, if children are mainstreamed after one year of intensive
English, they will be expected to learn the curriculum with their English-speaking
peers before they have academic English (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Collier, 1995).
This topic is what the original case of Lau v. Nichols dealt with.
The ruling stated that if children do not understand the language of instruction
they do not have equal access to the educational program. With English
Only, the way California’s Proposition 227 reads, children’s civil rights
are being violated because they are exposed to the curriculum in a language
in which they are not competent (Krashen, 1999).
Another approach is bilingual education. This option is the subject
of a lot of political as well as academic discussion. Bilingual education
covers a wide field, encompassing various types of program design.
For this paper, bilingual education will be defined as a program that provides
structured home language support while students learn English (Valdes,
2001.) Castaneda v. Pickard made it clear that for programs to be
sound academic programs they had to ensure that the students were catching
up with the curriculum as they learned English. In many bilingual
programs, content areas of the curriculum are taught in the home language
while language/reading instruction is in English. Other bilingual
programs introduce all academic content areas including language/reading
in the home language and gradually switch to English over a period of years
(Cloud et al, 2000; Collier 1995; Schwartz, 2000; Tharpe, 1997, Valdes,
2001). Most researchers in language acquisition favor some
kind or some degree of a bilingual education program. Using the home
language has been shown as a way to facilitate English language development
(Celce-Murcia, 2001, Collier, 1995; Cummins, 2001, Genesee, 1987; Greene,
1998; Krashen, 1997; Nieto,1999; Schwartz, 2000; Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001).
Administrators may run into practical difficulties when trying to establish
language programs. Bilingual education at the elementary level can
be easy to implement if the school serves a large number of one language
group. But in the middle and secondary schools, students entering
with little or no English will find more difficulty in encountering a bilingual
program. The nature of high school classes makes it difficult to
set up a bilingual program. It may not be cost effective to hire
a bilingual teacher if the numbers of language minority students do not
warrant a full time teacher for each content area. In this case,
LEP students are usually segregated into language classes, which concentrate
on teaching English so that later they will have the language competency
to learn in content classes (Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001). Given the Collier
research that states it takes 5-10 years to learn academic language, late-entering
language minority students have little chance to catch up, receive an equal
education and get a high school diploma (Schwartz, 2000; Valdes, 2001).
Another practical consideration for bilingual programs occurs in schools
or school system where students come from many different language groups.
In order to form bilingual classes, there must be at least 15-20 students
who have the same home language. Schools that have no predominant
language minority cannot afford to offer bilingual classes for only 3 or
4 students. It is not surprising then that bilingual programs are
usually found in large schools or large school systems (Tse, 2001).
Politically, the issue of bilingual education raises many questions and
doubts because of misinterpretation of the goals of the program.
In all well-designed bilingual programs fluency in English is the goal.
The added benefit of instruction in the home language is that it helps
students in cognitive development as well as in the job market (Cummins,
2001; Krashen, 1999). In the past, many bilingual programs have not been
well designed and so critics can point to low achievement of language minorities
and complain about bilingual education. Unz initiative proponents used
the results of poorly designed bilingual education programs to bolster
their argument for English Only (Arce, 1998; Crawford, 1999). Crawford
notes in his article against the Unz initiative that only 30% of eligible
language minority students were in bilingual programs at the time of Proposition
227 and of that 30%, only 20% were in classes with a certified teacher.
According to Castaneda v. Pickard all students in bilingual programs must
be taught by a certified teacher, just like students in mainstream classes.
Even though school systems were not following the law, bilingual education
was criticized and eliminated under Proposition 227 (Crawford, 1999).
Unz focused on the high Hispanic dropout rate in California schools but
did not mention that most of the dropouts were not fluent in English and
therefore had not had access to the curriculum. The dropout rate
among students who were bilingual was the same as their English-speaking
peers (Krashen, 1999) possibly indicating that they were receiving
equal input.
Politically, bilingual education has its detractors because of the perceived
intent of the programs. Some people believe that the Unz initiative
was designed to deny access to education to Hispanic students in order
to maintain an underclass, which could not become politically powerful
since they had no access to higher education (Arce, 1998; Crawford, 1999).
Without language competency to successfully finish high school, language
minority students would not be able to enter university and therefore would
not have access to professional career tracks. Bilingual education
does not guarantee quality education but it does provide an avenue towards
equal access to the curriculum when the student does not have fluency in
English (Arce, 1998).
Another
approach for language development is English as a second language (ESL).
ESL classes are specially designed to systematically teach basic communicative
English, and as the students’ knowledge and command of English increases,
teach academic content. The goal of ESL is to bring non-English speakers
to fluency in social language and develop their critical thinking skills
so that they can access the curriculum (Celce-Murcia, 2001).
ESL programs usually have children meet separately, away from their English-speaking
peers and the mainstream classroom, and gradually integrate the students
as their proficiency increases (Celce-Murcia, 2001, Collier, 1995).
ESL is especially successful in combination with bilingual education.
With the two programs together, children learn subject material in their
home language and ESL support to bring them to proficiency in English (Cummins,
2001; Krashen, 1999; Nieto, 2000; Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001).
The
main criticism of ESL programs centers on the separation of the students
from their peers for instruction. Critics believe that by separating
the students, ESL students are isolated from the mainstreamed children
and from the curriculum. Also, by grouping LEP students together
in a class, language minority students are removed from hearing their native
English-speaking peers who would provide good language models for them
(Celce-Murcia, 2001). Supporters of ESL programs note that since
most ESL programs on the elementary level are not full day, the students
have the opportunity to mix with their peers in the classes which are not
ESL designated (Celce-Murcia, 2001).
Another criticism of ESL programs revolves around the use or lack of use
of the home language in instruction. Studies show that students who
are literate in their home language can apply those language skills to
English when their home language is used in instruction (Collier, 1995;
Cummins, 2001; Spangeberg-Urbschat, 1994; Valdes, 2001). ESL programs,
which are not coupled with a bilingual education component, are found in
situations in which there is not one large minority language group or when
there are few language minority students. Again, school systems do
not find it economically feasible to provide home language instruction
to small groups of students. Furthermore, when there is a small language
minority population and the language is not commonly spoken in the U.S.
school systems have difficulty finding and purchasing quality materials
for a bilingual program (Cloud, et al, 2000). For example, because of the
large number of Hispanic students in the US school system, quality materials
for educating children in Spanish are easy to locate. But quality
materials in Pashto or Mongolian are much more difficult to locate especially
in a non-urban school district. It is populations like these which
are more frequently served by an ESL program which is not coupled with
bilingual instruction.
In other
cases schools or school system choose to implement an ESL program when
the political issues of bilingual education cast a negative view on the
motives of teaching children in their home language (Arce, 1998; Crawford,
1999; Krashen, 1999). In California, the Unz initiative, or Proposition
227, is an example of negative views on bilingual education winning over
practical considerations of what is best for the students involved.
The decision to implement an ESL program uncoupled with bilingual education
is a negative reaction to the number of students who enter the school system
without adequate English rather than an endorsement of ESL programs (Arce,
1998; Crawford, 1999).
Another issue
which comes to light when examining options for language minority students
to gain access to equal education is one that is raised but not specifically
addressed in Lau v. Nichols and Castaneda v. Pickard. These
decisions ruled that students should be given language support which allows
them equal access to the curriculum. Also, students have to be given
the opportunity to catch up with the curriculum which they missed while
learning English. What the decisions do not say is how long language
minority students should be in language support programs before being expected
to perform on an equal basis with their English proficient peers.
According to supporters of English Only, LEP students should be given one
year of intensive English and then mainstreamed. According to experts
in language acquisition, children need 5-10 years of language support in
order to be successful in the language of instruction (Collier, 1995; Cummins,
2001; Spangeberg-Urbschat, 1994). On the elementary level, many ESL
only programs tend to work with language development until the children
are able to be mainstreamed, usually in the lowest functioning reading
group in their peer age group. (Collier, 1995; Nieto, 1999, Spangenberg-Urbschat,
1994) After that it is up to the classroom teacher to foster continued
language development. In bilingual programs, depending on whether
the emphasis is on quickly transitioning to English or on maintaining the
home language on an equal basis with English, children can spend anywhere
from 1 to 12 years in a language support program (Cloud, et al, 2000; Tse,
2001; Valdes, 2001). Frequently, school systems have to decide how
much to offer and many make the decision on how much language support to
offer based on available resources and enrollment statistics rather than
on what is best for the children according to research).Crawford, 1999)
WHAT THE LITERATURE DOES NOT SAY
Lau v. Nichols
and other legislation that guarantees the rights of minority students to
an equal education have been on the books for 30 years and yet many children
are not succeeding in the public school system. When looking at the
statistics of retention and dropout rates for LEP students, the question
remains, are the schools complying with the law? In the era of high
stakes testing, where standards continue to rise, what is the best way
to ensure that students who enter public school systems without fluency
in English are getting access to the curriculum? From the research
it is clear that in general, schools are not complying with Lau v. Nichols.
Decisions on program choice and implementation are not being made with
the students’ academic progress as the number one concern.
High stakes
testing will bring to light the lack of academic progress of LEP students.
As the standards change, educators must change the way they look at language
support. More accountability means more testing and more testing
now includes language minority students. Even though these students
entered the school system without fluency in English, they must take and
pass the standardized tests the same as native English speakers.
As of 1997, 17 states have made passing standardized tests in multiple
content areas, a requirement for obtaining a high school diploma (August
& Hakuta, 1997). In the years since that study, many more states
have joined their ranks. As stated before, in New York, because of
the stiffening of the graduation requirements, the dropout rate for language
minority students went from 17% in the year before the English Regents
exam became mandatory for all students to 31%. The article also notes that
these students were able to finish all the other requirements for graduation
including passing the school based exams. One standardized test stands
between them and their access to higher education. School systems
need to address the raising of standards and the effect standardized testing
has on language minority students. Research needs to address what
to do in situations like this in which language minority students are barred
from access to higher education and to the professional job market because
they do not have the academic language needed to pass standardized exams.
Another
area requiring research is in finding the best way for language minority
children, who test not proficient in their home language, to access the
public school curriculum. Most of the research on bilingual education
has been done with populations which have a strong first language base.
Researchers discuss how first language fluency facilitates second language
learning in a bilingual program (Collier, 1995; Cummins, 2001; Cloud et
al, 2000; Genesee, 1987; Nieto, 2000; Spangeberg-Urbschat,
1994; Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001). In all of these studies, the value of the
first language is emphasized as a bridge to accessing a second language.
Analyses of recent school populations show that more and more children
are entering the school system with no academic skills in their home language.
In many immigrant situations, parents of these children are illiterate
and therefore their children enter with low literacy and little sense of
the importance of print (Tse, 2001).
Research needs
to focus on the growing, illiterate immigrant segment of our school population.
Economic immigrants frequently come for short periods of time to send money
back to support family members and then return to their home country.
In these families, children—many who are born in the US—enter the school
system with no English and limited home language ability (Schulte, 2002).
Since the parents are here to work and earn money, children are relegated
to babysitters and TV as their companions. Teachers mention how language
minority students enter kindergarten not knowing the basics that English
speaking students know. Not only do the students not know the words
in their home language for colors, numbers and letters but they do not
have the concepts. Research needs to focus on how to begin with students
who are not proficient in any language. What way is the best way
to enable these language learners to have access to the school curriculum?
Should they be taught the concepts in their home language when there is
not much of a foundation to build on? This is an issue which has
not been addressed in research but is becoming more important since these
children will be held to the same standards as native English speakers
and students who enter school highly proficient in their home language.
Research also
needs to find out the best way to give equal access to the curriculum for
students whose parents or guardians do not value education for cultural
reasons. When families are in the U.S. on a temporary basis (which
can mean from one to 20 years) the focus of the family is on maintaining
the home language so that the children can communicate with the family
members who did not come to this country. The children encounter
pressure from the family to speak and function in the home language and
are encouraged to resist being absorbed into the host country culture.
In many of these families, the parents’ education or lack of it provides
the basis for teaching their children the value of education. For
example, in many countries, education is not seen as a way to get ahead
economically. Getting a good job depends on who one knows or on family
connections. In the U.S., the family looks at primary education as
a babysitting service while the parents are at work rather than an avenue
towards economic advancement. The high school student gets pressured
to hold down a full time job in order to contribute to the money the family
sends to the home country. Dropping out of school before graduation is
not seen in a negative light since the reason the family is in the U.S.
is an economic one. As our immigrant population increases, educators
need to understand the cultural implications of parent expectations of
the schools. Programs which serve the needs of children who enter
with low proficiency in the home language and are pressured not to become
Americanized need to be explored. These children are enrolled in schools
and subject to the standardized tests which will count towards the school’s
accreditation and evaluation.
Summary
The law has established
that children who speak a language other than English are entitled to an
education equal to that which their English-speaking peers receive.
Through the years, from the 14th Amendment to the clarifications by the
Supreme Court found in Lau v. Nichols and Castaneda v. Pickard, the framework
has been put in place to provide for equal access to the curriculum in
public schools. Many programs have been developed to serve the needs
of these children. Bilingual education, ESL and bilingual education
combined, and English Only are some of the options.
In deciding how
to comply with the law, decision-makers must look at research on language
acquisition. Research shows that developmental bilingual education
used in combination with ESL is the best option if the program continues
for at least five years (Collier & Thomas, 2002). When bilingual
programs are not practical, or acceptable for economic or political reasons,
the next option for giving language minority children access to the curriculum
is a high quality, content-based ESL program. Enrollment in the program
should be maintained until the children perform on standardized tests at
the same level as their English-speaking peers (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Tse,
2001). The least favorable option is the English Only program passed
in California as Proposition 227 which outlaws bilingual education and
specifies one year of intensive ESL for language minority students.
According to the Collier research, English Only has the same success rate
as no ESL instruction at all. Students taught under this option drip
out at the highest rates and have the lowest standardized scores (Collier
& Thomas, 2002).
Looking at these
program options educational leaders and decision-makers should decide on
the dual-language immersion model as the best way to comply with the law.
Yet California, Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts and New York have either
passed legislation restricting bilingual education programs or are about
to. Obviously, what is best for language minority children was not
the prime concern.
Under Proposition
227, children in California receive the least effective program of
language support and yet the initiative was passed by 66% of the voters.
This means states, districts or schools do not always choose to provide
the best avenue for students to access the curriculum. There
are many other considerations such as politics, economics and practicality
which enter the decision making process.
Guidance for
conforming to Lau v. Nichols exists but there are still high dropout
rates of language minority students and high retention rates. This
fact points out that even though academically sound programs exist for
language minority students, school systems do not always institute them.
And, when poor program decisions are made, nothing happens especially academic
progress in the classroom. In many cases, language minority students are
silent participants in the curriculum. Since they do not understand
what goes on in the classroom, they maintain low visibility and hope that
they are not noticed (Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001).
However,
in the era of high stakes testing, language minority students will be noticed
and their needs will have to be addressed. Educators must choose research-based
solutions and institute what is best for the students, rather than fall
in with the proponents of the Unz initiative and the supporters of English
Only which guarantees that students will not have equal access to the curriculum
after one year in intensive English (Arce, 1998; Crawford, 1999).
Research shows that good programs exist, especially the late-exit, two-way
bilingual programs studied by Collier and Thomas (2002). However,
research also shows that successful programs are usually found in small
programs, single classrooms, or small school districts. They are
rarely found in large school systems with large numbers of language minority
students. (Tharpe, 1997).
Conclusions and Implications
Based on the literature,
where do we go from here? The research community knows more about
what to do than how to go about getting it done. Districts with large
language minority populations rarely have effective, system-wide programs
based on research and best practices for at risk populations. Effective
programs are usually found on a small-scale basis either in small districts
or in individual classrooms of outstanding teachers (Tharpe, 1997).
How can we get the good programs into the urban areas that need them?
The structure for educating
language minority students is in place in many school systems. ESL
and bilingual programs have been around for over 30 years and were legislated
in the Bilingual Education Act over 30 years ago. In systems
where the schools are not offering a program that gives minority students
access to the curriculum, the parents have to become advocates for their
children to get what they are entitled to under the law. If the parents
are not advocates then the school community must be the spokespersons.
Teachers must become familiar with the literature and research on multicultural
education, language acquisition, and bilingual/ESL program design.
Schools must take responsibility for educating all children, not just those
who understand the language. Not only are they ethically responsible
but now with high stakes testing, the success or failure of language minority
children will come to light. How can educational leaders make schools
take responsibility for language minority students by establishing
language support programs which research shows are academically sound?
State decision-makers
must put aside the political reasons for rejecting bilingual education
as the best way to provide access to the school curriculum and focus on
the positive results which have been proven by research (Collier, 1995;
Cummins, 2001; Genesee, 1987; Krashen, 1999; Spangenberg-Urbschat, 1994;
Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001). The public must be educated to see that
the foundation of bilingual education is not to provide home language education
but rather to provide enough language support in the native language so
that students can progress in English, receiving the same access to the
curriculum as their native English- speaking peers. According to
Collier and Thomas, the best way is a late-exit, two-way immersion program
(2002). How can we get state decision-makers to focus on the best solution
for educating those who don’t speak English?
Not only should a program
for language minorities be offered but the outcomes of students in the
program and exited from the program should show that the students are performing
as well as their English-speaking peers. As we have seen in the Collier
& Thomas study, most bilingual and ESL programs are of the ‘early-exit’
type and last only until the student is capable of performing in the lowest
reading group in the mainstream classroom (2002). Now that
standardized test scores are used as a measure of academic language (August
& Hakuta, 1997), language minority students should receive language
support until their academic English skills give them full access to the
curriculum. How can we make state and federal decision-makers see that
raising the stakes in high stakes testing and creating an education system
where one size fits all does not serve the language minority students?
The intent of
equal opportunity decisions such as Lau v. Nichols and Castaneda
v. Pickard is to provide equal educational opportunities. And yet,
if the school has an ESL teacher, a bilingual class, or a resource teacher
who works just with language minority students, then the system can say
that they have the intent. Can the intent be measured in outcomes?
That is another, more important issue. Measuring outcomes would show
whether the school systems used the remedies to actually improve the education
which language minority students are receiving. If a school has a
bilingual class and that class is not following sound methodology then
the students are not receiving equal access to education. The focus
has to be on the outcomes if compliance to Lau v Nichols is the goal.
How can schools be made to realize that compliance with the law will raise
academic standards for all?
These are important
questions to answer as we examine a pedagogical issue with political overtones
(Arce, 1998; Crawford, 1999). As researchers study ways to
give language minority students equal access to the curriculum, they must
keep the children in mind. What is best for them? Even though
the law guarantees equal access to education, and the programs to facilitate
the equal access exist, the discussion still goes on. Language minority
students still have high dropout rates and high retention rates.
As standards rise and accountability increases, the decisions made for
children leave the pedagogical realm and enter the political. Educating
this large group of language minority students in a way which gives them
equal access to education and follows the guarantees of the law is a challenge
for educators in the 21st century. This group of students is expected to
constitute 40% of the student body in public schools by 2030, and
educational decision-makers cannot ignore them or offer them programs which
do not give them equal education. As accountability increases and
as the students’ population increases, language minority students must
receive what they are entitled to under the law.
As school systems grow
with increasing enrollment of students who need language support in order
to access the curriculum, and with the legal requirement as stated in Lau
v. Nichols to educate these students equally, decision-makers must
put political concerns aside and chose the best program option so that
all students can achieve academically. The most important factor
in making a language program decision must be to do what is best
for the students in order to comply with the law.
References
Arce, J. (1998). Cultural hegemony: The politics of bilingual
education. Muticultural
Education, 6, 2, 10-16.
August, D. & Hakuta,K. (Eds.) (1997) Improving schooling for language
minority
children: A research agenda.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.