New Study Casts Doubts on Effectiveness of Bilingual Education

In 1973, The State of Texas began an experiment in education to combat the growing number of Hispanic children with limited English proficiency. No one doubts that the approach before – ignoring the problem – was a poor answer. But to reformers, the new solution would best integrate Hispanic children into mainstream Texas.

Thirty-six years later, few would argue the program has been a glittering success. In fact one new study claims it is an almost complete failure. Or to use the Spanish word which needs no translation, a fiasco.

A new study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation makes that case with some pretty hard numbers. It starts off by asking a question that few in government seem to have posed – what is the goal of bilingual education.

The answer, as the study’s author, Dr. Christine Rossell of Boston University, says, is to teach the English language to students with limited English skills. Although some pro-bilingual groups would argue that definition is simplistic, Rossell points out that ultimately, bilingual education is a transitional process, beyond which all subjects are taught in English. If English isn’t mastered, then the learning ends.

And judging by that standard, Rossell argues, Texas’ bilingual education system has failed.

“The data analyzed in this study suggest that bilingual education is the least effective program for ELL (English language learner) students if one’s goal is achievement in English,” Rossell writes.

Furthermore, she notes, bilingual education is also much more expensive than the alternative programs. And with a selective testing requirement, there is evidence that the true failure of the program might in fact be even worse than the study findings would suggest.

Bilingual Education

Texas is one of only four states requiring bilingual education in schools. Six other states have tried bilingual education and moved away from it. Texas requires bilingual ed from pre-Kindergarten to 5th grade. Middle schools have a choice of bilingual education, English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, or some other alternative. High schools are only required to offer ESL classes. They are allowed to use bilingual education, but almost all schools in Texas opt not to do it.

Bilingual education is a process in which students are taught classes in both English and their own native language (Spanish for 99 percent of Texas ELL students). The benefit to the program, as argued by supporters, is that students can begin to learn about math, science or other areas of study from the beginning, without having to wait for their English skills to catch up to other students. 

This comes at a cost for the student, because English-language learning is a part-time affair, and the native language can become a crutch. And it comes at a price to the taxpayers because it dramatically increases the number of bilingual educators required.

One common alternative is English immersion. This is the sink-or-swim approach to learning a language that is closer to the natural way children learn languages, but many opponents fear that it increases the likelihood that children will get behind on those core subjects while they struggle to learn them in a strange language.

But Rossell makes the case in her study that the status quo of bilingual education just isn’t working. By studying grades 3, 4 and 5 – the ones in which standardized testing is conducted in both English and Spanish – she came up with a number of findings.

Testing and English Proficiency

Students, as stated above, can take the TAKS test in those grades in English or Spanish – or can be exempted from taking it completely. State law, however, requires schools to maximize the number of students taking the test in English, and thus this becomes a de-facto benchmark for the effectiveness of bilingual education.

The TAKS test, one outside review found, is not very difficult, and compared to standards of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is far more likely to pass students who are not as proficient than would be the case under NAEP standards. Thus, in Texas, the number who pass the test is over-inflated.

With this in mind, the TAKS test can hardly be argued as too difficult for students who have supposedly mastered English to pass. But few bilingual education students actually take the test in English. In fact, compared to other ELL students not in bilingual education, there is a direct correlation: bilingual education students take the English TAKS at only 46 percent in 4th Grade, as opposed to those ELL students not in bilingual education, who take it at 79 percent.

This trend holds for all disciplines. Although it would stand to reason that it would be easier to test math and science in English than reading, the statistics show that bilingual education students still take the English test at a much lower level – more so than in reading and comprehension.

In addition to showing few gains for all the effort expended, what this study shows as well, Rossell argues, is that the actual test scores are not being accurately measured. This is likely hiding an even worse outcome, not that of language proficiency, but of student achievement.

“What these results show is that bilingual education is given an unfair advantage in comparison to other programs for ELL students because it tests fewer ELL students in English. In other words, the untested students disappear from public scrutiny.” she wrote. “The small number of researchers who have looked at this issue in other states, and on a nationwide basis, have discovered a similar phenomenon.”

Of course, students can also take the TAKS test in Spanish, as well as not take it. But this exemption is only for three years at most. The clear goal then, of state law, is for students to take the test in English. 

“Indeed, the only reason a proficiency assessment committee would schedule an ELL child for an exam in Spanish is that the committee thought the child would score higher in Spanish than in English,” Rossell argues. “Any difference between types of ELL programs in English testing rates can be considered an outcome of the program. It can also be considered a systematic ‘bias’ that invalidates a simple assessment of achievement outcomes between programs. That is because the students who would score lowest in English are exempted from testing in English.”

Using an analysis that weighs testing percentages into outcomes, Rossell also shows that TAKS scores for reading, writing, math and science are all lower for English language learner students in bilingual education programs than those English language learner students in other programs.

Dollars and Centavos

Rossell also looks at the cost of bilingual education, and found little there to inspire confidence in the Texas model. Texas spends an additional $400 over the per-child cost for children in bilingual education. Additionally, it costs the state an additional $200 for instruction of bilingual education over the cost of other English language learner instruction costs. 

“In short, bilingual education costs more (i.e., has an added cost) than do alternative programs, such as a mainstream classroom with ESL pullout or sheltered English immersion,” Rossell found.

With a higher cost and poorer outcomes Rossell argues, bilingual education fails to achieve any justifiable goal. Texas is spending more and getting less.

The alternatives to bilingual education, while not perfect, do offer a better investment for both the taxpayer and the education system, Rossell argues. Sheltered English immersion programs, she concludes, would be a much better system. Failing that, parents should be given the choice to opt out of bilingual education programs if they feel their children are failing to reach their educational goals.

Lastly, Rossell argues that all students should be tested on the English-language TAKS program to prevent schools from hiding bilingual education outcomes and to truly measure the prime goal of bilingual education: English proficiency.