English and Bilingual Education

Introduction

English immersion and bilingual education programs have been widely practiced in the United States since world war II to benefit the immigrant population of the U.S that did not know English. It was essential for immigrants to learn English since the provision and acquisition of most social amenities depending on the ability to speak English (Bruno, 2003). While Bilingual program education has widely been accepted and has shown immense advantages to immigrant population students and parents, a ban on bilingual education has also risen and become popular among organizations. The proposal on the prohibition of the bilingual education programme has also been seen in the 227 California proposition which proposes that California Public schools should teach Limited English Proficient student(LEP) in special classes that are all taught nearly in English to eliminate a vast number of bilingual classes in the curriculum. The passage further adds that there is a need to shorten the period taken by most LEP students in the special classes before the transition to the English only classes (California, 1998). The Californian 227 passage proposal sparks insight on significant reasons as to why organizations such as the English U.S and English First propose a ban on bilingual education. In response, this paper furthers the discussion on the primary reasons for the ban of bilingual education and a reaction from the opposing side by organizations such as Office of English Language Acquisition, and Teachers of English to speakers of other languages.

Reasons For Banning Bilingual Education

The U.S English proposed a ban in the bilingual education programme for Limited English Proficient students because the plan did not have clear guidelines of how its model was to operate and had failed severally (Bruno, 2003). Proponents of the U.S English further assert that even though the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was passed in 1968, the Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary education Amendments showed flaws that had not been corrected. Also, they allude that the means of implementing the program were not clear and posed difficulty to users who failed to understand how the programme operated how (Greene, 1998). In failing to define a clear approach of the plan during inception, the U. S English and English First indicate that the Bilingual education Programme was vague because for it to be considered an established curriculum., it should have stipulated clear guidelines on the operation of the programme to teachers and parents for easy judgment. Users of the schedule have not been able to identify the appropriate program to apply and determine the extent to which the programme is suitable. The programme ought to have also defined training to support the program users. It can be rightly put that having a poor instruction model that does not meet the requirements of an established curriculum adds to the reasons that the U.S English proposes a ban on bilingual education (Ramirez, 1991).

Organizations in the United States support the interdiction of bilingual education on claims that the program imposes strict and unrealistic timelines for learning the English language while it would only take little time for an LEP learner to learn English on transition. The crucial concern of the U.S English is the period that the program proposes (Greene, 1998). The bilingual education program recommends at least five to seven years of learning of bilingual learning before moving to the English-only class. This period is long enough for an LEP learner to understand concepts in English. Also, by comparing the duration take n by a Limited English Proficient learner to that of a native English speaker, the period may accord an English native speaker time to learn and achieve good grades leaving behind an LEP student who has to accomplish close to seven or more years in the bilingual class before joining the English class. It is also evident that most programs offered during the years could only be a duplicate of what students might have learned earlier. Most organizations have confirmed that at least one year is enough for special classes and will enable students to acquire a good working knowledge of English which will give them an easy walk when tested in English (California, 1998). A short period in a ‘sheltered English class’ will increase familiarity and understanding since illustrative materials and practical tools are used to facilitate learning and quick perception (Curiel, 1986).

Running and maintaining the Bilingual education program is costly. The presence of many people with limited English proficiency will compel the government to make adjustments in making English a second language class. The need to save is essential in such a scenario so that resources can be used elsewhere (Bruno, 2003). Most studies have shown how the special classes for bilingual education can approximately take one year or less. This might cost a much lesser cost than the programme offered in five to seven years. To cut off this cost from the government and other stakeholders, most organizations find it fit to ban the bilingual education programme. The English first proponents argue that the state provides ‘compensatory funds’ to schools according to the number of LEP students (Gambino, 2014). If the program can be banned, the number of LEP students will reduce in schools and further the fiscal costs will highly be saved for other projects that support education. The California 227 proposal support this bid in a proposal that should banning of native language be reconsidered, then it should only be weighed on parents who request native language for their children on a few localities (California, 1998)

Fear of suppression of the English –resource language in the U.S is another reason why the English U.S and English first seek to abolish the bilingual education programme. With vast numbers showing growth of non-English speakers in America, bilingual education programme will only aid in the dominance of bilingual languages and suppression of English which is the official language of communication in America (California, 1998). Organizations in charge find a threat in continued support for bilingual education programme prevents the dominance of bilingual languages which may in the future replace the English language. Supporters of the English only movement further claim that this may complicate social dynamics and cooperation at the school since language difference stalls communication (Turnbull, 2016). In the school system, there is a high concern of that incorporating native language instructions into the school curricula affects students’ adjustment to schooling. When children are first introduced to learning through their native language, they will be accustomed to being in the classroom and having the right tools they need to learn a language rather than adjusting to other activities in school (Curiel, 1986). Subscribers of the English First advocate for a ban of bilingual education program to protect English as a preferred language and also prevent impact on co-curricular and social dynamics in schools and work environments.

Retorts On The Ban Of Bilingual Education by Opposing Organizations

The popularity of the ban on native language instruction in school has also been faced by criticism as opposing organizations respond to the claims cited by organizations like U.S English and English First. Some of the refuting organizations in the forefront fighting this claims include; The Office Of English Acquisition, The National Association for Bilingual Education and the Teachers of English to Speakers of other languages. It is interesting to understand the reasons why despite the widespread ban on native instruction, organizations like The Office of English Acquisition continue providing grants that prepare professionals to teach and facilitate English learning among LEP’s. Also, the organization is involved in policy-making to support continuity in native instruction among immigrants. On the other hand, The National Clearing House of Language Acquisition is at the forefront publicizing information on educational research that focuses on practices and policies for English learners. Additionally, both The National Association of Bilingual Education(NABE) and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages(Tesol) have a similar function of improving instructional practices for linguistically diverse children. In their retorts, the organizations present their claims as below;

Contrary to the claim that proponents of a ban in bilingual education assert that bilingual education LEPs can be enrolled on short-term ‘sheltered English and then undergo transition to the immersed programme, The Office of the English Acquisition holds to the fact that the short periods may not enhance better performance for such students who are linguistically affected. The duration may be short for them to capture all the details required to facilitate English learning. In support of their view, Curiel(1986 ) presents a practical exercise carried out on students at Junior and Junior high school to measure performance and educational attainment. Two groups consisting of the experimental group that had received bilingual instructions for more than one year, while the other group was an English immersed group that had not participated in the special elementary program. Curiel found out that there was a significant impact of bilingual instruction on students than those without native instructional learning. Those that had been exposed to bilingual learning achieved higher grades than the ones who participated in regular English classes. The education attainment of those in bilingual instruction was progressive in junior to high school level as opposed to an unpredictable trend by the regular English class (Ramirez, 1991). On analysis of duration, it was discovered that students who were exposed to the bilingual program longer performed even better than those that took short periods in sheltered English classes.

Curiel’s observation gives insights that bilingual education program facilitates improvement in education performance. It is also useful in increasing standardized test score in English and other subjects. This phenomenon can be better understood through examination of Cummin’s developmental interdependence Hypothesis where the author noted excellence in a second language was due to exposure and understanding of the first language. When a child is intensively put to developmental learning of their first language, the child will acquire skills that will be transferable to development of the second language easily (Ramirez, 1991). This proposition, therefore, clears out the doubt on how bilingual education helps students attain good grades in school (Greene, 1998). The experiment presented supports the idea of longer durations in bilingual education to achieve better grades.

Linguistical differences cause social disharmony. As the U.S English observers give an example of a school or a workplace where bilingual languages slow communication and segregation to a more considerable extent. The Teachers of English to Speakers of other languages assert that having one common language in the classroom with linguistically challenged children would be worse as there will be a high number of school dropouts. A class with essential numbers of LEP ’s without bilingual institutional programme is bound to have lower mean scores and a high number of dropouts whose needs may not have been addressed adequately (Greene, 1998). To leverage this situation, Green and Curiel saw the need to have a bilingual education program in schools for LEP’s and their parents which will besides facilitate faster learning of English language and boost the children’s academic performance. In this view, the authors also point out that school dropouts among LEP ’s could be poor comprehension and exposure to a second language which they barely understand. This fact points more on understanding students and helping them enjoy learning environment (Zhao, 2016).

Students vary in their needs, and so does English proficiency. Some students even though linguistically challenged may have little knowledge of English while others may have nothing at all and thus may require more time. Although there is a significant dispute on wastage of resources and money, in implementing programs and financing teachers of bilingual education. It would be more prudent if policymakers looked at the burden that linguistic challenges pose on institutions and teachers (Turnbull, 2016). Halting bilingual educational programme will only extend the problem at hand which is affecting most American Institutions that have not subscribed to bilingual teaching. Some institutions are experiencing poor results which they have failed to identify the root cause, others register a low turn up of registration, and hence delivery of service becomes limited (Zhao, 2016). For organizations like the National Association for bilingual education, before coming up with policies that guard bilingual education (Greene J. P., 1998), examining the classroom content and needs of students with English proficiency to help address issues amicably and create policies that serve their mission. The office of English Language acquisition advocates for multilingual education to provide a measure of leadership through informed policy decisions which are derived from an assessment of the effectiveness and functioning of the program. Put differently; bilingual education is vital in reporting and addressing problems that affect learning in general, social challenges and institutional stability. If the application is avoided, accessing some of the issues that affect institutions as well as determinants for policy making will be difficult.

Learning through native instructional programme yields confidence and raises self-esteem among students. Since native language impacts faster learning and transition to the English language, the use of expressions, practical examples makes the learning even more enjoyable (Turnbull, 2016). It would be easier for linguistically affected individuals to express themselves easily though native instructions than it would have been for those in the regular immersed English classes. A primary challenge for those in the regular English class may be slow mastery of words and actions which might require more time. On the other hand, students with a grasp of the native instructions will be quick in expression since they learn at home and are only reminded at school. Communication through speech and signs is important in learning, and to teachers of English to Speakers of other language organization, this form of mastery by English nonproficient students makes work more accessible for their professionals especially when seeking particular information (Zhao, 2016). The organization does not support the ban on bilingual education as it would limit their scope of work regarding obtaining information or in preparing learners to meet the standards of higher education levels (Turnbull, 2016).

Conclusion

Bilingual education has been a controversial issue in the United States, and organizations have risen to give support and criticize the program, The U. English and English first find the program ineffective, flawed and lacking proper curricula guidelines. They also add that if allowed in schools, it will suppress the use and application of the English language. They further criticize the education program claiming that it imposes inappropriate timelines on LEPs to English leaning. Without the program, policy formation will not be valid on matters of education and institutional structure, The Office of English Language Acquisition and the National Association for bilingual education defend their stand on the policy. They also argue that Bilingual education facilitates improvement in education performance and standardized tests scores in English, Good retention helps in reducing school dropouts among LEPs while equipping them with confidence and self-esteem. The points supporting bilingual education remain concrete and would highly be efficient to have English and bilingual education system.

References

Bruno, H. B. (2003, October). United States Census Bureau . Retrieved from Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2003/dec/c2kbr-29.html

California, P. 2. (1998, June). Proposition 227, 1998: English Language in Public Schools. Retrieved from https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/1998/227_06_1998.htm

Curiel, H. R. (1986). Impacts of bilingual education on secondary school grades, attendance, retentions, and drop-out. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,, 8 (4), 357-367.

Gambino P. C, Y. D. (2014, June 10). United States Census Bureau . Retrieved August 3, 2018, from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-26.html

Greene, J. P. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.

Greene, J. P. (1998). Bilingual education: The case for science over politics. Thomas Rivera Policy Institute Policy Brief. Rivera: Thomas Rivera Policy Institute.

Ramirez, J. D. (1991). Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority Children. Final Report. Aguirre International, San Mateo, CA. Washington: U.S Department of Education.

Turnbull, B. (2016). Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual education: epistemological changes towards the emergent bilingual. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1 , 1-8.

Zhao, C. (2016). The bilingual advantage: language, literacy, and the US labor market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (4), 509-510.