Bilingual Education in Colorado:
A Disadvantage to English Learners

Trista Harguth
Freshman, The University of Northern Colorado, Greeley
E-mail: harg5528@blue.unco.edu

Imagine life as a child in a foreign country, ignorant of the native language. Not knowing the main language would make anyone, especially children, feel isolated and secluded. Now, imagine life as an immigrant child involved in a bilingual education program, trying hard to learn the language.

Initiated by the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, the debate over whether or not to continue bilingual education has been a long one. This Act created the first federal bilingual education policy for non-English speaking students and also described how the policy would be funded within school district programs (Duignan). The United States Congress set aside $7.5 million to teach Mexican-American non-English speaking students in public schools (Goode 12). In 1974, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lau vs. Nichols that identical education was not equal education for limited-English students (Richman). This meant that teaching every student in English is not giving every student--language minority students in particular--an equal education, because not all children can understand English. In today's schools, English as a Second Language (ESL), Dual Immersion, and bilingual education are most commonly used. ESL is a program in which English learners (students who are not fluent in English) are taught mainly in English for part of the day or the whole day with some native language assistance. Dual-Language programs consist of teachers who instruct in two languages, in order for English speakers to learn another language and for English learners to learn English. Bilingual education, also known as native language instruction, means that all or most of the school day is taught in the child's native language with little English instruction ("Ballot Booklet" 18).

The bilingual education law passed in Colorado in 1974 established bilingual education as the system for instruction of English learners; this law was repealed in 1984 to allow more flexibility in dealing with students whose first language was not English (Richman). Currently in Colorado, schools identify the students who need English instruction, test the students' English proficiency, and establish an English skills course in order for the students to participate in the school's regular education program. This wording allows for a lot of flexibility in developing programs. The Colorado Department of Education reports that Colorado has approximately 71,000 non-English speaking students in the public school systems. Spanish-speaking students are in the majority, amounting to about 58,100 students (Catalogue of Languages). With so many English learners in the school systems, Colorado needs to look critically at which language learning systems work best.

With a country as large as the United States, there are countless numbers of success and failure stories about bilingual education. Many parents are eager to tell how their child learned English through the bilingual program while other parents have stories of how bilingual education negatively impacted their child's education. Carefully planned studies are valuable tools from which to base conclusions, but as is true with research, especially educational research, it is difficult to control background factors, such as the wealth of the participants or values of a particular area that greatly influence the results of the study.

Supporters and detractors also abound. Advocates of bilingual education claim that many parents want their children to learn more than one language so that they will be better prepared to live and work in the global economy. Another argument is that bilingual education produces a higher sense of self-esteem because instruction is being done in a language that the children understand (Rothstein 672). One of the biggest arguments for bilingual education is preserving the culture and language of the immigrants (Rothstein 672). With Mexico so close to the United States, some immigrant parents want their children to know and keep the two cultures in case they return to their homeland. However, it is not the responsibility of state-funded public schools to preserve this culture; it is the responsibility of the family. Those who are in opposition to bilingual education argue that bilingual programs are expensive, produce low test scores and high dropout rates, are unfavorable to parents of immigrant children, and inaccurately place children into bilingual programs. By comparing the pros and cons, it seems that bilingual education should be eliminated from Colorado's public schools because it is hurtful to both those children fluent in English and those trying to learn English. This bilingual program should be replaced with a structured English Immersion Program.

Perhaps one of the biggest complaints against bilingual education is the expense. The media is full of stories about the need for budget cuts. Often, programs that are more essential than bilingual education, such as music and art, are cut. Insight on the News reports that bilingual education costs twice as much as ESL (Goode 12). The American Legislative Exchange Council estimated that in 1991-1992, native-language programs cost the United States $5.5 billion. As a comparison, ESL programs cost the United States $2 billion the same year (Richman). This amount makes sense when taking into account the cost of buying foreign language textbooks and paying teachers that are able and qualified to teach math, social studies, and other subjects in the foreign language. Many schools with bilingual programs are given money through tax-funded salaries and grants. This leads a person to wonder if the real motive behind keeping the program is helping the children learn English or if the motive is receiving the extra tax-funded money. U.S. News & World Report says that of the federal funds that are designated for helping children learn English, 75% of the money goes to programs and classes that are not rooted in English (Headden 44). This means that only 25% of the federal money is going to programs that are mainly in English.

Along with bilingual education being expensive, the dropout rate for Hispanics is the highest of any ethnic group in the country--even after thirty years of the bilingual education program. Federally, the high school dropout rate of Hispanics is nearly 30%, or about four times the dropout rate of White, non-Hispanics ("Dropout Rates"). These statistics are especially interesting because Spanish-speaking children are the students who are usually placed in bilingual programs because they make up the majority of the language-minority students. Therefore, it can be concluded that those students who are in bilingual education have the highest dropout rates. Colorado's Denver Public School District has approximately 31,000 Hispanic students. According to Richman, the dropout rate for these students is nearly half. These dropout rates are more evidence that there are flaws in the bilingual education programs in the country, and, more specifically, in Colorado.

Another problem with bilingual education is the length of time that English learners are kept in these classes. Often, "bilingual education" means monolingual, or Spanish-only, for the first four to seven years of a child's school career. Even with spending such an immense amount of time in bilingual classes, children are not being taught to speak, read, and write English. The current system is not successful when so many children are leaving school without these abilities. These students are at a disadvantage for life, both economically and socially, because they lack the necessary English skills to be successful. They do not know at such a young age that they will need English later in life.

Nationwide, about 3.5 million students do not know English well enough to succeed in regular classrooms (Chavez 106). There are no studies that show staying in a bilingual program longer produces better English skills. In fact, if anything, studies show that the longer a student is in bilingual education, the worse his or her English skills tend to be--even in math, where language is less important. Bilingual researchers Christine H. Rossell and Keith Baker claim that the longer students stay in bilingual education, the lower they score on standardized tests (qtd in Richman). Rosalie Pedalino Porter, a former bilingual education teacher and bilingual researcher, says in her fifteen years in working in the classroom and concentrated research, nothing has convinced her that waiting four to seven years before beginning instruction in English will lead to a better understanding of English or a greater ability to learn English (qtd in Richman). If bilingual education were a successful program, students would be able to be placed in mainstream classes sooner. As it is now, students are spending too much time in bilingual programs; therefore, the programs need to be ended in Colorado so that English learners can finally learn English.

As previously mentioned, the majority of English learners are Spanish-speaking. In most cases, children who speak other languages (such as Asians or Africans) are in mainstream classes and are taught mostly in English. Sometimes they are able to receive some native-language assistance, but the majority of class time is in English. Hispanic students, on the other hand, spend a majority of their day learning in their native language. It is interesting that the Spanish-speaking students are the ones in the bilingual programs, yet they have the lowest test scores and highest dropout rates. Asians and Africans who are in mainstream classes, however, do not have the significant differences in test scores or dropout rates.

It is important to consider that a large majority of immigrant parents do not favor bilingual education. Parents should have input into how their children are educated. The Center for Equal Opportunity's national survey interviewed six hundred Latino parents in Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and San Antonio. A strong majority of these parents favored learning English as the first priority for their children, considering it more important than learning other subjects. That their children learn English is much more important to these parents than learning to read and write in Spanish (Richman). The immigrant parents understand that English is necessary to survive in the American culture. Newt Gingrich brings up a good point when he says, "If people had wanted to remain immersed in their old culture, they could have done so without coming to America" (qtd in Rothstein 672). Immigrant parents believe in the success of Americans, and many come to America in hopes of experiencing or having their children experience that same success. The strong majority of parents who oppose bilingual education should provide a strong message to bilingual advocates that Colorado needs to get rid of the bilingual education program.

Adding to the reasons to rid Colorado of bilingual education is the inaccurate placement of students in bilingual programs. One of the biggest complaints is that children are being placed in bilingual education programs based on their last names; whether the child's last name is Miller or Martinez could determine if the child is in bilingual education or in a regular classroom. According to a bilingual education study, 60% of children who are forced into bilingual programs already know English, not Spanish, as their main language (Richman). American Institutes Research also conducted a study that evaluated federally supported bilingual programs. They found that 16% of students in these programs only spoke Spanish, and 86% of project directors admitted that even when children became functional in English they remained in the program (Richman). With statistics such as these, it is no surprise that so many parents are against bilingual education. Until children can be correctly placed in bilingual programs, Colorado should eliminate the system.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence against bilingual education is the test scores produced by students in bilingual programs. Each year, Colorado students take the Colorado Student Assessment Program test (CSAP). Including the Spanish students' CSAP scores with the English-speaking students' scores caused twenty-eight out of forty-nine schools--or 57%--to receive a lower, overall score than CSAP scores that included only English speakers' scores (Colorado General Assembly). In the Denver Public School system, each year students in the bilingual program are given the Language Aptitude Survey, which measures the English reading level of the students. Every student is assigned a number from one to five. One is the lowest score, and a score of five means the student no longer qualifies for bilingual funds. After one year of bilingual education, 84% of students failed to reach even level four. After year two, 11% of students received a lower score than they did the first year, and 80% of students showed no significant improvement after two years of being in bilingual education programs (Richman). This clearly shows that there are flaws in the bilingual program, and Colorado needs to find a new method of instructing non-English speaking children.

What is the solution to the bilingual education program? A good alternative for Colorado schools is structured English Immersion. This is a program where children learn all subjects in English but are in a special class with other English learners where the teacher can help their limited English. "Immersion" is often confused with "submersion." Submersion is a program in which children receive no special assistance and is how the early immigrants learned when they attended classes with English-speaking children. English immersion will not place children who cannot speak English into regular class where they have to "sink or swim." All educators share the goal of helping children learn English; English Immersion, however, works toward helping the children learn English as quickly as possible so that they are not left behind their peers. It also helps non-English students to assimilate into the American, English-speaking society. Rather than waiting four to seven years to begin learning English, children are taught primarily in English starting in Kindergarten because learning a language is easier when children are younger. In addition, learning a language is easier if a person is immersed in the language. Many people who go overseas to foreign countries say that being taught in a foreign-language classroom does not teach as much as immersion in the language of the country. In addition, immigrant children already know their native languages; they need the public schools to teach them English.

While Colorado has not adopted the structured immersion program, California has used this program. Two years after English Immersion was in place in California, test scores of students increased significantly. In 1998, second grade reading scores were at the twelfth percentile. In 2000, the reading scores jumped to the thirty-second percentile. Math scores increased even more than the reading scores. From 1998 to 2000, math scores went from the eighteenth to the forty-seventh percentile (Chavez 106). These statistics illustrate the value of structured English Immersion. If Colorado were to adopt a similar program, students' scores would rise as well and the English learners will be able to learn the language they will need in their futures.

Bilingual education has had plenty of time to prove its failures. Colorado's English-speaking children are disadvantaged when money that could be used to improve their education is going to illegal immigrants. English learners are at a disadvantage because the bilingual program has proven itself to be ineffective. Bilingual education is expensive, produces low-test scores, generates high dropout rates, is unfavorable with immigrant parents, wrongly places students in bilingual classes, and is inconsistent. Structured English Immersion, on the other hand, raises test scores and is significantly less expensive. All of the problems with bilingual education programs can be dealt with using better programs. By weighing the pros and cons of bilingual education, the only realistic conclusion that can be made is that bilingual education should be eliminated from all schools in Colorado and replaced with the English Immersion program.

Works Cited

"Ballot Information Booklet."

Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly. (2002, September 10). No. 502-7. Denver, Colorado: 18-21.

 

Catalogue of Languages Other Than English Spoken in Colorado Schools.

Report of Students Whose Dominant Language is Not English Committee. CO General Assembly, 2001.

 

Chavez, Linda.

"Why Latinos Should Oppose Bilingual Education." Uneducated Bilingualism 13:10. (2000 October). 106.

 

Colorado General Assembly.

Effect of Both Including or Not Including the Scores of Students Who are Given Assessments in Languages Other than English. Report of Students Whose Dominant Language is not English Committee, 2001.

 

"Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000."

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). October 2000. (15 March 2003) <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/droppub_2001/tables/table3.asp>.

 

Duignan, Peter.

"Bilingual Education: A Critique." Hoover Institution: Hoover Essay. (13 March 2003) at <http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/he/22/22g.html>.

 

Goode, Stephen.

"Bilingual Barrier?" Insight on the News 11:30(Aug. 1995). 12.

 

Headden, Susan.

"Tongue-Tied in the Schools: Bilingual Education Began as a Good Idea, Now it Needs Fixing." U.S. News & World Report 119:12 (Sep. 1995). 44.

 

Richman, Sheldon.

"Bilingual Education: A Failed Experiment on the Children." Independence Institute (June 1997). (9 April, 2003) at <http://i2i.org/Publications/IP/Education/isbiling.htm>

 

Rothstein, Richard.

"Bilingual Education: The Controversy." Phi Delta Kappan. 79:9(1998). 672.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: 28 May 2003 / Updated: --