Opponents of bilingual education said “I told you so” last spring, when the state Department of Education announced test scores for “English learners.” Those in English-only classrooms scored higher on a test of their English skills than students in “bilingual education,” who spend part of the day studying English and the rest studying other subjects in their home language.

More than five years ago California voters passed Proposition 227, requiring public schools to be taught “overwhelmingly” in English —unless at least 20 parents in one grade request bilingual education. Now less than one in 10 “English learners” are in bilingual classrooms—before Prop. 227 it was almost one in five.

Most students who enter the system with limited English spend one year in intensive English classes, then move to mainstream classrooms.

Has Prop. 227 helped or harmed “English language learners?”

Helped!
Experiment after experiment with bilingual education has shown its failure to teach English. The test scores have confirmed this. Bilingual education is not used anywhere else in the world. English has become the world’s unofficial language (especially for business and technology).
—Ron Unz, initiator of Proposition 227

When I told the school we speak Spanish at home, they put my son (who could speak English) in a 50-50 Spanish-English class (illegal under Prop. 227).

I’m against children taking bilingual classes because (they) don’t give them the proper grammar they need to succeed in high school and college. Kids are sponges for languages. They watch TV; kids in the neighborhood talk to them in English. If we tell kids they have a language barrier, it holds them back. We should get the right to learn the proper business language.

So we asked them to put him in full English immersion. When he got into the English class he was able to focus more.
—Lourdes Oliva, producer, Radio Bilingue

Some Good Effects
One positive is that the districts are adopting new materials that are better at addressing the needs of English learners. We also have more qualified aides to assist students, some who can provide follow-up in the home language. And more teachers now have (training in teaching English learners).
—Gary Dixon, prinicipal, Gardenhill Elementary School, La Mirada

It’s not good for the kids, but in some ways it was good for the teachers. It made bilingual programs clean up their act and show results, not only in the primary language but also in teaching English. I’m not sure it was the best way to do it, but in some respects it has made programs more accountable.
—Liz Aguirre, teacher, Bowling Green Elementary School, Sacramento

Harmed!
(Prop. 227 created) a situation where English learners are set up for failure because they are not able to get any help in their native language. As a result, the kids don’t want to go to school. They feel like low achievers.

What about last spring’s tests, when students in English-only classes got higher scores? Not every district still has bilingual programs. The ones that do tend to be large urban districts—those test scores will probably be lower.
—David Sanchez, veteran teacher, Santa Maria School District, secretary-treasurer, California Teachers Association

In my experience, Prop 227 has been destructive to (English learners). While they develop the ability to communicate in English rather quickly, they haven’t developed the English vocabulary and concepts for academic subjects.

I’m now teaching a group of English learners, all in English, and they have a great deal of difficulty in writing and in understanding complex concepts in reading. If they had been developing those abilities all along in their primary language, that could transfer into English.
—Paul Huebner, L.A. elementary school teacher, East Area Chair for United Teachers of L.A.

Proposition 227 undermined the potential of many students to be bilingual. Kids who speak a foreign language are taught English at the expense of their native language, which they lose and then have to re-learn later.
—Francisco Jimenez, novelist and Santa Clara University professor

English immersion may help some students learn English faster but it does not work for everyone. And many Chinese parents value Chinese bilingual programs because it enhances their connection to their child.
—Christina Wong, policy advocate, Chinese for Affirmative Action

Our school doesn’t have any Spanish-speaking teachers at the primary level. Parents are coming to me saying that in kindergarten and first-grade, their kids come home crying because they don’t understand, saying they hate school.

Then they come to us at the intermediate level and they know they can’t read, although they try to hide it. Some of these students will drop out—look at the drop-out rate for Latino students.
—Lydia Cruz, teacher, Clayton B. Wire Elementary School, Sacramento

The Issue Is Quality!
For me, both programs work if they are implemented well. The question isn’t whether someone teaches in English, the question is how well someone teaches English.
—Howard Bryan, director of bilingual education at Santa Ana Unified School District

The bilingual programs in my district are not very organized, and certainly not as well staffed. We don’t have the trained teachers—we don’t even have a textbook. I don’t think [bilingual education] has been done well on a large scale in California ever. (But) I think what we do with bilingual education is better than taking their language away at kindergarten.
—Marta Gardner, bilingual teacher, Esperanza Elementary School in L.A.

There’s reams of research showing that effective bilingual programs develop students’ academic and English proficiency as successfully or more successfully than English-only. The research also shows that most students can’t learn English in one year.

(In last spring’s tests) the scores of students in English-only programs moved up, but kids in bilingual education made greater gains proportionally.

But students in English-only classes still scored higher.
Because parents whose kids are at the lowest level of English proficiency put them into bilingual programs!
—Norm Gold, former director of bilingual education for the California Department of Education

As a principal, I found that Prop 227 can be successful only when four conditions are present:

1. A competent teacher who knows English-teaching strategies
2. After-school and summer (tutoring) that’s at least partly in the student’s primary language
3. Students who come in with some literacy skills
4. At least three hours a day of English language teaching

In the current budget environment, that’s tough to get.

In Fresno County we have dual immersion bilingual education in Khmer and Spanish (English-speaking students learn the other language while speakers of that language learn English). The research is pretty clear. Scores of the English learners in those programs are behind in the beginning, but by seventh or eighth grade they are caught up and in some cases ahead.

As we become more of a global society, the ability to be completely fluent in both languages is important—but without primary language support, they may not be fluent in both.
—Kathryn Catania, coordinator of programs and student support, Fresno County Office of Education

For more information on English immersion and bilingual education:

• California Association for Bilingual Education
• California State Department of Education
• California Teachers Association
• California Tomorrow

This article originally appeared in the September/October 2003 issue of Children’s Advocate, published by Action Alliance for Children.