Bilingual education is typically seen as an educational program for limited English-proficient students. But in November 2016, California voters will decide if they will act on a growing body of research that strongly suggests dual language instruction is a superior approach for all students. It is the kind of education state Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens (Los Angeles County), encourages in his Senate Bill 1174, which put the measure on the ballot to give students more access to multilingual instruction. Such education, he says, benefits our entire society.
Seventeen years ago, Californians passed Proposition 227, which severely limits use of the home language in educating language-minority students and greatly reduces the number of students receiving bilingual instruction.
Frustration with scores
If bilingual education is so much better, what accounted for California’s attempt to end it in 1998? There were many factors; no doubt one was the widespread frustration with persistently low academic achievement by many of the state’s 1.4 million English-learner students. This, and the assumption that mandating all-English instruction was the solution. Within a few years two other states — Arizona and Massachusetts — enacted versions of Proposition 227.
Unfortunately, results have not been what English-only proponents envisioned. A 2006 study of Proposition 227’s effects found that even after 10 years in California schools, an English learner has less than a 40 percent chance of being considered proficient in English.
The achievement gap between English learners and their English-speaking peers has increased by almost 1½ grade levels in eighth grade and slightly in fourth grade. Results are similarly unimpressive for English learners in Arizona and Massachusetts.
In the country as a whole, however, where bilingual education generally remains an option, the reading achievement gap has decreased by nearly a grade level in fourth grade and decreased slightly in eighth grade.
To be fair, it’s difficult to draw hard-and-fast conclusions based on state data, because policies vary in many ways and other trends might point to different conclusions. But one thing is clear: Restrictive language policies are no silver bullet. They might even be counterproductive.
Read the entire commentary on the San Francisco Chronicle website.
© Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
