Bilingual-education research has helped to inform and to shape federal policy and funding as articulated in the Bilingual Education Act, first passed in 1968 as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. During the Act's most recent reauthorization, the U.S. Department of Education and others proposed changing the law to fund more all-English language programs. They argued that the federal government was mandating a single approach, that there was no research evidence to support such a mandate, and that schools should be granted flexibility in designing programs to meet local needs. In fashioning this argument, proponents of change carefully selected the research literature they alluded to. That research was judged against artificially high and overly narrow criteria. Finally, they overinterpreted the research to suit their agenda. Congress was under intense political pressure to fund more all-English programs, and it did so. But a panel of experts contradicted the argument that there was no research to support the use of the native language for instruction. In the end, Congress kept the bulk of the monies devoted to bilingual programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
idem , “A Meta-analysis of Selected Studies on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education,”Review of Educational Research, 55:269-317 (1985).
2.
2. Pub. L. 100-297 (1988).
3.
3. Robert F. Boruch and David S. Cordray, “An Appraisal of Educational Program Evaluations: Federal, State, and Local Agencies” (Manuscript, North-western University, June 1980).
4.
4. Thomas D. Cook and William R. Shadish, Jr., “Program Evaluation: The Worldly Science,”Annual Review of Psychology, 37:193-232 (1986).
5.
Charles E. Lindblom and David K. Cohen, Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979).
6.
idem , Bilingual Education: Information on Limited English Proficient Students, GAO/HRD-87-85BR, Apr. 1987.
7.
7. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Education and Labor, A Report of the Compendium of Papers on the Topic of Bilingual Education, serial no. 99-R (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, June 1986).
8.
8. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Education and Labor, Reauthorization of Expiring Federal and Secondary Programs: Bilingual Education, vol. 4, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, Mar. 1987).
Colman B. Stein , Sink or Swim: The Politics of Bilingual Education (New York: Praeger, 1986).
11.
11. The Supreme Court's Lau decision involved only the San Francisco School District. As a precedent, it has been construed as applying more broadly. See Lau v. Nichols, 94 S. Ct. 786 (1974).
12.
12. Though it was overturned on appeal, United States v. Texas is one example relating to the education of language-minority children. United States v. Texas, 506 F. Supp. 405 (E. D. Texas 1981).
13.
13. For a review of some of the better-known decisions, see Arnold H. Leibowitz, Federal Recognition of the Rights of Minority Language Groups (Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, InterAmerica Research Associates, 1982).
14.
14. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000d (1964), was the basis of the Supreme Court's Lau decision.
Terri L. Newman , “Proposal: Bilingual Education Guidelines for the Courts and the Schools,”Emory Law Journal, 33:577-629 (1984).
21.
Newman , “Proposal,” provides a good overview of how social science research is translated into legal discourse.
22.
22. The Carter administration was forced to promulgate rules and regulations when school districts threatened to sue over the use of an internal Office of Civil Rights memorandum as the basis for implementing the Lau decision. See Stein, Sink or Swim, pp. 53-58.
23.
23. Not only did the regulations go beyond the Court's decision, but they seemed to contravene concurring decisions by Justices Blackmun and Burger to the effect that “the children with whom we are concerned here number about 1,800. This is a very substantial group.... Numbers are at the heart of this case.” Lau v. Nichols, reprinted in Leibowitz, Federal Recognition, pp. 134-135.
24.
24. Marshall Smith has observed that the full story of these regulations has never been told. The Carter administration had earlier proposed a less stringent set of regulations, but these were rejected by Hispanics who threatened to withhold support from his reelection campaign unless the more stringent regulations were promulgated. Marshall Smith, Comments made at the Symposium “Bilingual Education Research and Policy: The Debate Continues,”Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 5-9 Apr. 1988.
25.
25. Stein, Sink or Swim, pp. 71-92.
26.
26. Baker and de Kanter, eds., Bilingual Education.
27.
A later, slightly revised and expanded version is idem, “Effectiveness of Bilingual Education,” in Bilingual Education, ed. Baker and de Kanter, pp. 33-86. Due to its timing, the former is the report that is usually meant when people refer to the Baker and de Kanter study.
28.
28. Baker and de Kanter, “Effectiveness of Bilingual Education,” p. 33.
29.
29. Ibid., pp. 49-52.
30.
30. See my discussion later in this article. See also Walter G. Secada, “This Is 1987, Not 1980: A Comment on a Comment,”Review of Educational Research, 57(3):377-384 (1987).
31.
31. Secada, “This Is 1987, Not 1980.”
32.
32. Schools facing court orders to desegregate could also turn to the ESEA for assistance in meeting court-ordered remedies. For these latter schools, the ESEA funds were a carrot to the court's stick.
33.
Stein , Sink or Swim.
34.
Orum , “Question of Effectiveness.”
35.
Epstein , Language, Ethnicity and the Schools.
36.
36. For a poignant argument on this point, see Richard Rodriguez, Hunger of Memory (Boston: David R. Godine, 1982).
37.
Stein , Sink or Swim.
38.
See also Andersson and Boyer, Bilingual Schooling in the United States, p. 29.
39.
39. Andersson and Boyer note that 2 bilingual programs had started in Texas in 1964; the list had grown to include about 24 from throughout Texas and the Southwest by 1966. Andersson and Boyer, Bilingual Schooling in the United States, pp. 26-27.
40.
Mackey and Beebe, Bilingual Schools for a Bicultural Community.
41.
41. Andersson and Boyer, Bilingual Schooling in the United States, pp. 28-34.
42.
42. Stein, Sink or Swim, pp. 20-44.
43.
43. Andersson and Boyer, Bilingual Schooling in the United States, p. 40.
44.
Stein , Sink or Swim, pp. 33-35.
45.
45. Malcolm N. Danoffet al., Evaluation of the Impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English Bilingual Education Programs, 3 vols. (Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research, 1977-78).
46.
46. Andersson and Boyer, Bilingual Schooling in the United States, p. 42.
47.
47. Malcolm Danoffet al., “Results,” in The Impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English Bilingual Education Program during the 1975-1976 School Year, vol. 2. (Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research, 1978), ch. 6, p. 76.
48.
48. Danoffet al., “Results,” ch. 6, p. 76.
49.
Willig , “Effectiveness of Bilingual Education.”
50.
50. Epstein, Language, Ethnicity and the Schools, pp. 3, 17-32.
51.
51. Similar distinctions had been drawn by early proponents of bilingual education. For instance, Bruce Gaarder argued that the original Act was vague enough to “ `permit both the ethnocentrists [that is, proponents of transition into an all-English environment as quickly as possible] and the cultural pluralists [that is, proponents of developing dual-language literacy] to see what they want in the Act.' ” Quoted in Andersson and Boyer, Bilingual Schooling in the United States, p. 35.
52.
Rudolph C. Troike , “Research Evidence for the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education,”NABE Journal, 3(1):13-24 (1978).
53.
Paulston , Bilingual Education.
54.
See also S. S. Seiner and M. M. Seiner, “In the Wake of Conservative Reaction,” in Theory Technology and Public Policy, ed. Padilla, pp. 329-330.
55.
Willig , “Effectiveness of Bilingual Education;” idem, “Meta-analysis of Selected Studies.”
56.
56. Stein, Sink or Swim, p. 43.
57.
Stein , Sink or Swim, pp. 71-91.
58.
James Crawford claims that the text of bill was written in large part by James Lyons, lobbyist for the National Association for Bilingual Education. Crawford, Bilingual Education, p. 44.
59.
59. At this point, it was clear that the assimilationist view, as originally construed, had won out over the pluralist. The entry of all-English alternatives was yet another concession to that position. Ironically, those favoring pluralistic goals were to find themselves protecting the transitional program—that is, the assimilationist program—from further encroachment.
60.
60. Willig, “Meta-analysis of Selected Studies.”
61.
61. Ibid., p. 312.
62.
62. See Crawford, Bilingual Education, for an overview.
63.
63. William J. Bennett to Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, 25 Feb. 1986, in General Accounting Office, Bilingual Education: A New Look at the Research Evidence, pp. 46-47.
64.
64. Chester A. Finn to Charles A. Bowsher, in General Accounting Office, Bilingual Education: A New Look at the Research Evidence, p. 64.
65.
65. Committee on Education and Labor, Reauthorization of Expiring Federal and Secondary Programs: Bilingual Education, 4:5.
66.
66. General Accounting Office, Bilingual Education: A New Look at the Research Evidence.
69. Smith, Comments made at the Symposium “Bilingual Education Research and Policy.” Congressman Augustus Hawkins noted, “In bilingual education, we [the House Committee] strongly support a continuation of using the student's native language as an effective way to reach English proficiency, while at the same time have fashioned a delicate compromise which will continue these programs and allow the increased use of alternative methods of instruction.”U.S. Congress, House, Congressional Record, 100th Cong., 1st sess., 20 May 1987, 133(82):H3767. Congressmen Jeffords and Bartlett also acknowledged the political nature of the compromise. Ibid., pp. H3768, H3775.
70.
70. School districts may, on a year-by-year basis and up to a maximum of two more years, obtain waivers for individual students. Pub. L. 100-297, Title VII, 102 Stat. 274-93 (28 Apr. 1988). See also “Legislative Update: Changes in the Law,”NCBE Forum, 12(5):1, 3 (July-Aug. 1988).
71.
71. Smith, Comments made at the Symposium“Bilingual Education Research and Policy.”
72.
72. Congressmen Richardson and Martinez both argued that the research supported the continuation of bilingual education without increased funding for all-English programs. U.S. Congress, House, Congressional Record, 100th Cong., 1st sess., 20 May 1987, 133(82):H3782.
73.
73. The number of individuals reportedly served under this program is referred to by n. Where n is not given, the figure was either not provided or it could not be easily computed from the information provided. Taken from William J. Bennett, The Condition of Bilingual Education in the Nation: 1986 (Washington, DC: Department of Education, 1987).
74.
74. See comments by Congressman Kildee in Committee on Education and Labor, Reauthorization of Expiring Federal and Secondary Programs: Bilingual Education, vol. 4, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education.
75.
75. Baker and de Kanter, “Effectiveness of Bilingual Education,” p. 51.
76.
76. Committee on Education and Labor, Reauthorization of Expiring Federal and Secondary Programs: Bilingual Education, 4:30.
77.
77. Ibid.
78.
78. See General Accounting Office, Bilingual Education: A New Look at the Research Evidence, pp. 53-54.
79.
79. Clark and Astuto, “The Significance and Permanence of Changes.”
80.
80. Committee on Education and Labor, Reauthorization of Expiring Federal and Secondary Programs: Bilingual Education, 4:32.
81.
81. Ibid., pp. 39-40.
82.
82. S. B. Sarason, The Culture of School and the Problem of Change (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971).
83.
83. Stein, Sink or Swim.
84.
84. General Accounting Office, Bilingual Education: A New Look at the Research Evidence, pp. 74-75.
85.
and Cummins, Empowering Minority Students, review some more recent results.
86.
86. Peter H. Rossi and James D. Wright, “Evaluation Research: An Assessment,”Annual Review of Sociology, 10:331 (1984).
87.
87. Thomas D. Cook and William R. Shadish, Jr., “Program Evaluation: The Worldly Science,”Annual Review of Psychology, 37:195 (1986).
88.
In a reanalysis of those data, Cook and his colleagues argued that the program's overall effects were small and that, if anything, middle-class children benefited more from the program than did children of lower socioeconomic status. Thomas D. Cooket al., “Sesame Street” Revisited (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975). Cook and Shadish wrote, “If one values learning about 2 or 3 letters of the alphabet in six months, and if one does not object to the fact that economically advantaged children learn more from Sesame Street in the aggregate than disadvantaged children, then Sesame Street is good; but if one objects to either of these premises, then the program is not good.” Cook and Shadish, “Program Evaluation,” p. 216. Regardless of Cook et al.'s ongoing skepticism, Sesame Street has a unique status as part of the cultural milieu from which children are thought to acquire a wide range of early childhood competencies.
89.
Sheldon H. White and Stephen L. Buka, “Early Education: Programs, Traditions, and Policies,”Review of Research in Education, 14:43-91 (1987).
90.
90. See, for example, Christina Bratt Paulston, as quoted in Barry McLaughlin, Second Language Acquisition in Childhood, vol. 2, School Age Children, p. 240.
91.
91. That Bennett forgot this focus in his more rhetorical moments is another matter.
92.
92. Tallmadgeet al., Evaluation of Bilingual Education Programs.
93.
see Rudolph C. Troike, “Improving Conditions for Success in Bilingual Education Programs,” in Report of the Compendium of Papers, pp. 1-15.
94.
Sarason and Klaber, “School as a Social Situation.”
95.
95. See, for example, the longitudinal study in J. David Ramirez, “Comparing Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education: First-Year Results of a National Study,”American Journal of Education, 95(1):122-148 (1986).
96.
See General Accounting Office, Bilingual Education: A New Look at the Research Evidence, p. 72. But this is hardly an in-depth discussion of basic research.
97.
97. Ibid.
98.
98. General Accounting Office, Bilingual Education: Information on Limited English Proficient Students, p. 46.
99.
99. Rudolph C. Troike, “Improving Conditions for Success.”
100.
Daniel M. Ulibarri , “Issues in Estimates of Number of Limited English Proficient Students,” in Report of the Compendium of Papers, p. 61.
101.
101. General Accounting Office, Bilingual Education: Information on Limited English Proficient Students.
102.
102. Macias, “Teacher Preparation for Bilingual Education,” p. 43.
103.
103. Richard P. Duran, “Academic Achievement and Language Minority Children,” in Report of the Compendium of Papers, pp. 68-81.
104.
104. Hakuta and Snow, “Role of Research in Policy Decisions.”
105.
Ann Willig , “Reply to Baker,”Review of Educational Research, 57(3):363-376 (1987).
106.
106. Secada, “This Is 1987, Not 1980.”
107.
107. See California Department of Education, Studies in Immersion Education: A Collection for United States Educators (Sacramento: California Department of Education, 1984).
108.
idem , Second Year Report: Longitudinal Study of Immersion, Early-exit, and Late-exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language Minority Children (Mountain View, CA: SRA Technologies, 1987).
109.
109. Tallmadgeet al., Evaluation of Bilingual Education Programs.
110.
idem , Instructing Children with Limited English Ability (Arlington, VA: Development Associates, 1986).
111.
111. Lily Wong Fillmore and Concepcion Valadez, “Teaching Bilingual Learners,” in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3d ed., ed. Wittrock, pp. 648-685.
112.
112. See Crawford, Bilingual Education, chap. 7.
113.
113. Cummins, Empowering Minority Students, goes so far as to accuse critics of bilingual education of engaging in deliberate attempts at misinformation.
114.
114. There is an irony in that those favoring pluralist goals for bilingual education were defending a program model that, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, would have been considered as being assimilationist. Meanwhile, those favoring assimilationist goals were attacking a program model they had championed years before.
115.
115. Cook and Shadish, “Program Evaluation.”
116.
116. In 1968, the valued ideology was to improve educational opportunity, the facts were furnished by the Coral Way program. In 1974, the value was to enhance the program against a background of facts that pointed to its being underfunded and suffering from other technical ills. In 1978, Epstein provided the ideological base and AIR provided supporting facts. In 1988, Bennett's threefold argument of mandate, the research failure, and flexibility rested heavily upon the facts provided by Baker and de Kanter's research review. Willig's study and how it was used by the panel of experts to unsettle Bennett's position provide an example of the importance of research. That importance lies in how research can support an interpretation.
