Bilingual Education

From Compensatory To Quality Schooling

María Estela Brisk

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• eBook ISBN: 9781135618391
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling, Second Edition maintains its original purpose of synthesizing the research on successful bilingual education in order to demonstrate that quality bilingual education is possible and desirable.

Findings from a wide range of studies are integrated to provide a clear picture of bilingual education in today's schools, and a professional understanding of the foundations and issues surrounding bilingual education programs. The recommendations offered provide a comprehensive basis for planning, developing, improving, and evaluating bilingual programs. For clarity, these recommendations are discussed with respect to the whole school, the curriculum, and the classroom, but it is stressed that they need to be applied in a holistic way because they depend on each other. All educators who work or will work with bilingual students--classroom teachers, administrators, and curricula developers--will find the information in this text essential and will appreciate the straightforward approach and easy reading style.

New in the Second Edition:
*A new Chapter 1, Pursuing Successful Schooling, includes the definition of success that frames the content of the book, and a review of how the research on bilingual education has changed.
*Chapter 2, Bilingual Education Debate, is substantially revised to address major changes in demographics and legislation.
*Chapter 3, Contextual and Individual Factors: Supports and Challenges, is updated to include important new research on the external and internal factors affecting learners and a new section on peers.
*Chapter 4, Creating a Good School, is reorganized and updated.
*Chapter 5, Creating Quality Curriculum, is updated throughout, particularly the sections on teaching content areas and assessment.
*Chapter 6, Creating Quality Instruction, includes extensive new material in the sections on "Teaching English and In English" and "Teaching Students with Limited Schooling."
*Chapter 7, Beyond the Debate, has an extensive new section describing and analyzing how the framework for quality education can be used as a guide to help create a new program.

1: Pursuing Successful Schooling

Much of the debate on bilingual education is politically motivated, more suitable for talk shows than for improving schools. The United States can create quality bilingual education for the increasingly diverse student population, but only if we observe what really happens in our schools. If we continue to deal with bilingual education as a label, the sterile debate on how abruptly language minority students should be Americanized and Anglicized will continue to isolate many of our students. This book explores the abundant, though often inconsistent, research on the education of bilingual students. It also provides a personal testament to what I have observed in classrooms, in consulting with schools, and in training teachers for challenging roles in bilingual education.

When I attended a bilingual school in Latin America, bilingual education was viewed as quality education delivered in two languages. The elite eagerly enrolled their children in schools that offered, in addition to the regular curriculum, the opportunity to master at least two languages, the prerequisite, many believed, to vocational and social success. These values inhere in a number of bilingual schools throughout the world (Fishman, 1976). Yet in the United States, the term bilingual education evokes a different meaning. It refers to the education of children whose home language is not English. Bilingual education is often associated with urban education (where the children of immigrants often find themselves in compensatory programs and where high dropout rates are viewed as the failure of students rather than the failure of the system). Bilingual students are often branded as not only children whose English is inferior, but as students who are themselves inferior.

To educate such students successfully requires educational practices based on understanding how children learn languages and tailored to the talents and needs of language minority students. Their entry into American society requires that they learn English and adjust to the American culture. However, it is not necessary, or wise, that they do so at the cost of their native language and culture that, for many, are the foundations for their learning. Strong bilingual schools or programs not only meet the needs of bilingual students but also introduce monolingual students to diverse cultures and languages. Rather than eliminate other languages and cultures in U.S. schools, English-based education has the opportunity to take advantage of the linguistic and cultural diversity of our mixed society.

Certain factors such as family background, socioeconomic status, educational level of students and their families, and status of the language and ethnic group in the society undeniably affect schooling. But there is a danger that “stressing social and economic disadvantage as a major cause of educational underachievement can seem to absolve educators from their professional duty to educate all pupils effectively” (Tomlinson, 1989, p. 26). The danger increases when teachers and administrators stereotype students on the basis of such factors, limiting expectations and opportunities.

This book attempts to overcome such stereotypes, concentrating on what schools can do for bilingual learners. Careful review of the extensive research bearing on bilingual students indicates how to organize schools to provide good education for such students. However, before addressing the focus of this book— how to achieve quality bilingual education for language minority students—a few definitions are necessary: Who are bilingual and bicultural individuals, what is educational success, and what is compensatory and quality education?

BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL INDIVIDUALS

Bilinguals know more than one language to different degrees and use these languages for a variety of purposes (Mackey, 1968). Traditionally, only full fluency in two languages was accepted as bilingualism (Bloomfield, 1933). This narrow definition has evolved with the study of bilingualism. Grosjean (1989) defined a bilingual as a person who has developed competencies in two or more languages “to the extent required by his or her needs and those of the environment” (p. 6). Individuals are now generally considered bilingual even if their knowledge of a second language is limited.

Personal and social variables, independent of instruction, influence language development and language loss of bilinguals. Language status, attitudes, motivation, size of the ethnic community, and need affect second language acquisition and maintenance of the native language (Dorian, 1982; Gardner, 1982; Schumann, 1978; Spolsky, 1989). In turn, an individual’s degree of bilingualism constantly changes given experiences with the languages and the need to develop them. As Mackey (1968) suggested, “bilingualism is not a phenomenon of language; but it is a characteristic of its use” (p. 554). Therefore bilingual students present a variety of profiles, depending on the level of development of each language, whether they are literate in either or both, to what extent they use each language, and for which purpose.

Bilinguals have a unique ability to shift languages. While communicating with monolinguals they partially deactivate their other language. To communicate with similar bilinguals they make use of both languages, alternating and even mixing the languages. This process, called codeswitching, is a natural phenomenon and not evidence of poor language skills. On the contrary, bilingual children develop the ability to codeswitch and use it to enrich communication (Genishi, 1981). Bilinguals alternate languages for many reasons. Often a word in the other language comes to mind first or more accurately expresses the meaning. Change in language is prompted by topic, addressee, environment, or the need to call attention to, to give emphasis to, or to express solidarity with an ethnic group (Mackey, 1968; Romaine, 1995).

The definition of culture—like that of bilingualism—has gone through redefinition. The classical view of culture was based on the notion of uniform and static knowledge and behavior transmitted through generations. A more dynamic view sees culture as a process that “changes, expands and adapts to new circumstances” (Wurzel, 1988, p. 3). This dynamic process is nourished by life experiences.

The backgrounds of bilingual students vary greatly and thus do not fit a neatly defined cultural paradigm. Many enter a new cultural environment when they move to the United States. Socialized to a culture in their home country, they now enter schools that operate according to different cultural norms. The socialization of children born in the United States to immigrant parents or families that use languages other than English transcends cultural and linguistic boundaries because members of their extended family who interact with the children are crosscultural individuals transformed by the contact between the ethnic and American cultures. In these homes there is “an intermingling or merging of culturally diverse traditions” (Duranti & Ochs, 1995, p. 6).

Both languages and diverse cultural experiences play a role in the performance, behavior, and attitudes of bilinguals. Introduction of a new language and encounter with a new culture shock the linguistic, cognitive, and affective systems of bilingual students. Understanding bilinguals as unique individuals with more than one language available to them, rather than as the sum of two monolinguals,¹ and influenced by a dynamic cross-cultural experience, rather than rigid cultural stereotypes, is vital for designing school policy, classroom practices, and assessment procedures. Bilingual students are especially successful academically and socially when they value and cultivate their bilingualism and feel adjusted to both their heritage culture and their host culture. Schools and families who promote bilingualism and sociocultural integration ease the adjustment of children to the new social environment.

Often schools attend to the needs of those students who are not fluent in English but do not view as bilinguals those students who also know English. For example, a Korean American first grader fluent in English and Korean was not making much progress in an English remedial reading class in a suburban school. As soon as the teacher recognized the boy’s bilingualism and his cultural heritage and incorporated them as part of the classroom content, his reading ability blossomed, and in less than 8 weeks he was transferred out of remedial reading. Teachers should encourage the use of both languages as resources for communicating and learning. Students who consciously use their knowledge in their first language as a resource profit in the development of the second language (Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1995). Language and literacy ability are measured in terms of ability in both languages rather than each one separately, as well as ability to communicate in monolingual situations.

Many schools, curricula, and instructional practices pose as cross-cultural when they introduce songs, dress, and food from different nations. Though well intentioned, such superficialities add to stereotypes. Far more significant are students’ life experiences and their families’ and communities’ body of knowledge and beliefs. For example, a young Puerto Rican student was having difficulty with math tests. Her teacher learned that the student’s mother insisted that her child do math in her head, considering the use of pencil and paper an inferior skill. Once the teacher understood this, she was much better equipped to help the student transfer the math skills she already had to the school requirements.

I prefer the term bilingual student to other terms used in the literature and legislation such as limited English speaker (LES), limited English proficient (LEP), potential English proficient, English language learners, non-English speaker, or nonspeaker, all of which assume that language ability is measured by how much a person knows English. Most recent arrivals indeed are in the very early stages of bilingualism. Others, however, who have studied English before migrating or are exposed to English at home, know English and the home language. The term bilingual students should be applied not only to students being served by a bilingual program but to all students who use two or more languages and live a multicultural experience.

DEFINING SUCCESS

Defining success is a difficult and elusive task. Indicators of success and how to measure them are at the center of much controversy. This section analyzes how research on bilingual education considers success through questions. The section concludes with a proposed framework of success that guides the topics covered in this book.

Research Trends

A review of the research on bilingual education in the United States over the past 30 years reveals different trends in the underlying notion of success. The debate on the effectiveness of bilingual education dominated the research agenda in the 1970s. Most studies focused on the ability of bilingual programs to enhance students’ performance in English academic areas, especially language and mathematics. By the late 1980s, interest in effective practices steered researchers to ana- lyze in detail the characteristics of effective bilingual programs. Presently, an abyss separates those who believe in the impact of social context and the government who is pressing for large-scale empirical research. Many researchers prefer in-depth case studies of bilingual programs in context. The government promotes studies that focus on the performance in English of large numbers of students.

The debate over whether to offer bilingual education or which model of bilingual education produced scores of studies measuring students’ performance on standardized tests. The majority of these studies make little or no reference to characteristics of the program, the students, or the social context. Most of the studies researched performance in English reading and mathematics of elementary school Spanish-English bilingual students. The studies either compared bilingual education with English-only education, or evaluated particular types of bilingual education. These studies included little or no description of program characteristics.

Three metastudies (AIR, Baker & de Kanter, 1981, 1983; Rossell & Baker, 1996b) of existing evaluations or individual studies concluded that bilingual education did not have a significant impact. The controversial AIR report (Danoff, Coles, McLaughlin, & Reynolds, 1978) reviewed evaluations of Title VII-funded Spanish-English bilingual programs (1968). The purpose of this review was to establish the effects that federal funding of bilingual programs had on student achievement, particularly English reading, language, and math. Information was also gathered on Spanish language, reading, math, and attitudes. The AIR study carried out some surveys on students’ and teachers’ backgrounds as well as instruction and curricular characteristics. The study concluded that students in bilingual programs did not perform better than students not attending bilingual programs. Baker and de Kanter’s (1981, 1983) review focused on the ability of transitional bilingual programs to promote English language development. They concluded that the evidence from existing studies was weak. Rossell and Baker (1996b) asserted that transitional bilingual education is no better than structure immersion programs in developing English language skills. ²

Two major metastudies, Willig (1985) and Greene (1997), were done to rebut the findings of opponents of bilingual education. Willig analyzed 23 studies included in the Baker and de Kanter (1981) review of the literature. Willig’s report compared the results from various types of programs such as bilingual, ESL, and two-way with submersion models. Student outcomes tested in those studies included one or a combination of the following: English language, reading, writing, mathematics, cognitive functioning, attitudes, and self-concept. A few studies included Spanish language, reading, and writing and one addressed language, math, and social studies in French.

Greene (1997) offered a meta-analysis of 11 studies included in Rossell and Baker (1996b) comparing the effectiveness of various types of bilingual programs with English-only programs. The student outcomes reported are tests in English, tests in Spanish, and tests in English reading. Only 4 of the 11 studies measured native language. No program descriptions were included.

Other research supporting bilingual education reviews existing studies or evaluations. Zappert and Cruz (1977) surveyed 12 studies to look for evidence of the effectiveness of bilingual programs when compared to monolingual programs. They only reported on students’ outcomes on measures similar to those included in Willig (1985). There is no mention of whether the studies described the programs themselves. Zappert and Cruz found that performance of students in bilingual education programs, except for one in the Philippines, was equal or superior to that of students not attending bilingual programs.

Troike (1978) analyzed 12 programs, mostly funded by Title VII (1968), serving Spanish, Chinese, French, and Navajo populations. Outcomes evaluated include several of the following measures: English language, reading readiness, reading, writing, general achievement, math, and social studies. Only programs designed for Spanish bilinguals measured achievement in the native language. Some programs measured attendance. This analysis supported the effectiveness of bilingual programs.

Some studies focused on defending specific types of programs, such as maintenance and two-way bilingual education. Medina and Escamilla (1992a) measured the effect maintenance bilingual programs had on English language proficiency of Spanish speakers, and Medina (1991) also included Spanish language and math achievement. Medina and Escamilla (1992b) studied oral achievement in English and Spanish of students in maintenance programs. They compared the English results to those of Vietnamese speakers in transitional programs. Studies of twoway bilingual education reported student outcomes with respect to performance in language, math, and other content areas in both languages (Lindholm, 1991), as well as attitudes toward bilingualism (Cazabon, Nicoladis, & Lambert, 1998).

All of these studies and metastudies compared students in different educational models, giving little detail about the school context. Several of the metastudies and critiques commented on the fact that student backgrounds and program characteristics can influence student outcomes, but they did not include specifics (Gray, 1977; Troike, 1978; Willig, 1985). Bilingual maintenance and two-way program studies included some explanation of program characteristics such as language distribution in the curriculum. Only one of these major studies analyzed program characteristics and contextual factors. Ramirez (1992) compared the effectiveness of long-term transitional bilingual programs, short-term transitional bilingual programs, and English-only programs. This study included, in addition to student outcomes in English reading and math, some evidence of instructional strategies, staff qualifications, and parental involvement.

Interest in learning what makes a program work spurred a number of studies about program characteristics or teaching practices. Students’ outcomes were usually vaguely reported in these studies. Experts’ opinions and programs’ reputations in the community helped identify effective programs. In-depth qualitative studies corroborated their effectiveness. Rich descriptions of program and school characteristics highlighted the elements present in these successful schools (Berman, Minicucci, McLaughlin, Nelson, & Woodworth, 1995; Carter & Chatfield, 1986; Freeman, 1998; Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990; Mace-Matluck, Alexander- Kasparik, & Queen, 1998; Mace-Matluck, Hoover, & Calfee, 1989). Other studies focus only on effective classroom practices (Fisher, Guthrie, & Mandianch, 1983; Garcia, 1990; Gersten, 1996; Moll, 1988; Pease-Alvarez, Garcia, & Espinosa, 1991; Tikunoff, 1983; Wong Fillmore, Ammon, McLaughlin, & Ammon, 1985).

A number of studies addressed the effectiveness of particular teaching strategies with bilingual students. Studies of classroom characteristics and specific instructional practices described classroom context in detail but provided little information on the bilingual programs as a whole. These studies assessed student outcomes in one or both languages only with respect to skills that the particular instructional innovation addresses. A substantial number focused on approaches to developing literacy (Calderón, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Slavin, 1996; Dianda & Flaherty, 1994; Escamilla, 1994a; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991; Hernández, 1991; Muñiz-Swicegood, 1994; Saunders, O’Brien, Lennon, & McLean, 1996; Slavin & Madden, 1994; Tharp, 1982). Others highlighted strategies for teaching content areas (Cohen, 1984; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992).

A recent research trend considers student outcomes and educational program characteristics. Schools can only be successful if their students are progressing. To understand the nature of this success, researchers documented in detail the characteristics of the educational program offered to students as well as the social and historical context of these programs. The purposes of these studies varied. Dentler and Hafner (1997) focused on districts that successfully adjusted to the influx of sizable numbers of immigrant students. They provided student outcome data wit...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• PREFACE
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• 1: PURSUING SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLING
• 2: BILINGUAL EDUCATION DEBATE
• 3: CONTEXTUAL AND INDIVIDUAL FACTORS: SUPPORTS AND CHALLENGES
• 4: CREATING A GOOD SCHOOL
• 5: CREATING QUALITY CURRICULA
• 6: CREATING QUALITY INSTRUCTION
• 7: BEYOND THE DEBATE
• REFERENCES