Which works better in educating language minority students, bilingual education or English immersion?
English immersion works better. A child immersed in a new language picks it up in no time.
My father came to the US from Poland in 1920 at age 10. Fortunately, bilingual education hadn’t been devised yet. He was a good student and graduated high school with his class. He read English perfectly, and spoke without an accent.
All the research has shown that bilingual education hampers children from learning English, and it doesn’t even help them in other courses. This practice has done incalculable harm to the Hispanic community in America. Now that California has made the change, educators who formerly supported BE are coming out against it. There was an article about one such person in the NY Times Magazine a year or two ago.
Part of the problem is that bilingual education is done for more the benefit of the bilingual educators than for the children. For example, before the California voters threw it out, there were cases of American-born children from Hispanic families being forced into bilingual education over their parents’ objections.
It’s striking and sad that a program this unsucessful is still supported by much of the education establishment and by many politicians. 
december: English immersion works better. A child immersed in a new language picks it up in no time.
Very, very overstated. Mastering a second language for academic purposes, even in childhood when language learning is much easier, takes months or years, not “no time”.
My father came to the US from Poland in 1920 at age 10. Fortunately, bilingual education hadn’t been devised yet. He was a good student and graduated high school with his class. He read English perfectly, and spoke without an accent.
If your father was already literate in his primary language and had a decent level of education for his age group, he was in a much better position for immersion learning than many of today’s non-English-speaking students are. Immersion works better for many students, especially those who have some educational advantages already, but that doesn’t mean that bilingual ed is never a better solution.
All the research has shown that bilingual education hampers children from learning English, and it doesn’t even help them in other courses.
Wrong. True, there has been a lot of bad bilingual education in this country, and there has been a lot of bad legislation about it, but it is completely nuts to claim that “all the research” is conclusively against it. A more balanced presentation of the pros and cons, for example, is this article.
It’s striking and sad that a program this unsucessful is still supported by much of the education establishment and by many politicians.
Here, as in many cases, december sets up an illusory picture in which “all the research” unequivocally supports one conclusion, and explains away the opposition to it by stating or insinuating that the opponents must be unscrupulous, self-serving, or just plain stupid members of the educational or political establishment, whom we all know you can’t trust. :rolleyes:
Actually, of course, the reality is a lot more complicated than that. There isn’t really a simple answer to the question of which form of education is better—you have to ask, better for which students? better at doing what? better under what circumstances? Certainly, it’s not true that “all the research” points to one conclusion. As the above-linked article notes,
I must partially disagree with at least a portion of the link provided by Kimstu:
". Literacy developed in the primary language transfers to the second language. The reason is simple: Because we learn to read by reading that is, by making sense of what is on the page (Smith, 1994) it is easier to learn to read in a language we understand. Once we can read in one language, we can read in general. "
Not quite. I am an avid reader in my native language. I read very well in english (Native language) and I tend to believe that I express myself well. I began learning German at the age of 25 in college. I didn’t get good at even speaking until I was completely immersed in the culture (Work in a German firm with Only German speaking collegues) I can now speak with intelligibility, and read fairly accuratly,but I still can’t write well. It’s got to do with differences in language structure. Now picture someone coming from a country where the alphabet isn’t even the same (Japan or Turkey for example) no reference point at all.
Well done Bi-ED would probably work well but it doesn’t seem to be effectivly implemented very often so until it is, stick with what ever works on a case by case basis, I say.
Same token: A friends child (German) went to the US at the age of 12. He’s 16 now. He left here speaking not a word of english and understanding about the same amount. He moved to Texas and the only Bi ED was, naturally in spanish so he got the Immersion treatment (Boiled!!) Now, 4 years later he speaks english better than german. – However, he did have a basis in native language instruction but was a lousy student in Germany. In Texas he became a A - B student as opposed to a D - F student in his Native language.
Erasticity: Not quite. I am an avid reader in my native language. I read very well in english (Native language) and I tend to believe that I express myself well. I began learning German at the age of 25 in college. I didn’t get good at even speaking until I was completely immersed in the culture (Work in a German firm with Only German speaking collegues)
Fine, but that doesn’t really say much about the advantages and disadvantages of bilingual education for primary school children. Immersion is indeed a very useful way of acquiring language skills for many people, particularly those (such as adults) who already have written and verbal mastery of another language and who aren’t struggling to keep up with knowledge-acquisition requirements at the same time. That doesn’t mean that there’s no use for bilingual education.
Same token: A friends child (German) went to the US at the age of 12. He’s 16 now. He left here speaking not a word of english and understanding about the same amount. He moved to Texas and the only Bi ED was, naturally in spanish so he got the Immersion treatment (Boiled!!) Now, 4 years later he speaks english better than german.
Good; again, as somebody who was already literate in his native language and had some solid educational attainments to start with (and it’s generally true that academic standards are more rigorous in Germany than in the US, although I hope that that’s not the sole reason for his grades getting better in the States!), he’s one of the students that immersion typically works very well for.
“No time” is a figure of speech meaning a short time. Children immersed in a new language can function in that language in a few months.
This is like the excuse given by all phonies. “The phlogiston didn’t cure your mother’s cancer? That was because you applied it when the moons of Jupiter were in a bad position. Phlogiston is wonderful but it has to be done just right.”
Who says Stephen Krashen’s paper is balanced? Cite?
You got it, Kimstu.
There are also the blind defenders of BE, who are not unlike those who Lenin allegedly called “useful idiots.” (the blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies.)
The imitation research done by the educational establishment would be funny, if BE weren’t destroying the lives of millions of immigrant children.
Krashen’s citing of his own study doesn’t suggest “a more balanced presentation.” Note the weasel words well-designed. Any time BE fails, Krashen can explain away the failure by claiming that the program must not have been “well-designed.”
Bilingual education works in journal articles. It provides publications and papers to present at conferences. It leads to promotions within federal and state departments of education. It provides special teaching and administrative jobs for those involved with it in the schools. The only people it doesn’t work for is the students.
We don’t need no stinkin’ education journal articles. Since California gave up BE, a huge number of kids have switched to English immersion. The change is working wonderfully. That’s the reality. Even the NY Times admitted it.
Maybe there’s some other world where well-run BE is effective and where well-applied phlogiston cures cancer, but not here on earth.
To address the OP: The Straight Dope, from the NEA.
http://www.nea.org/issues/bilingual/
So, the answer to the question, “What works best?” is, “There is no answer”, or, “It depends.”
Hope this helps. Carry on. 
Hear, hear. Background: my native language is American English; my sister is 3 1/2 years older than I am, and our father was a French prof. On his 1st sabbatical when she was 5, she learned a little, then on the second (7 years later), my father tutored us over the summer, then in the fall sent us to French schools, where we both did all right. I still don’t know whether we’re both language geniuses, or if this would work for everyone.
On the one hand, my suspicion is that bilingual ed is what social conservatives fear: making excuses for people instead of demanding that they meet certain standards, and there are indeed a certain number of immigrant children who never seemed to have learned English well. And it’t all very well for Spanish speakers, but what about, say, Cambodian or Ebo or Pashtoon speakers? Where are their teachers going to come from? And then there’s the whole Ebonics can-a-worms.
On the other hand, despite all the talk about diversity, there’s immense pressure to assimilate. I know plenty of immigrants who are so intent on fitting in that they don’t speak their native language at home, and so the parents only communicate with their kids in a language they don’t speak all that well, and the kids never learn their “mother tongue”. And for those parents who try to teach their kids the native language, the kids often refuse, wanting to fit in.
I’ve no opinion on the issue at hand, but this argument doesn’t hold water. I read the quoted article, and the author clearly define what is a “well-designed” BE programm. He can’t state that any BE program failing is a poorly designed one, like in your phlogiston example, since he gives precise criteriums to sort out “well designed” and “poorly designed” programs.
So, it’s perfectly possible to test his hypothesis. If a “well-designed” program, as he define it, fails, he’s wrong. If it suceeds, he’s right. And even if 99% of the BE programs turn out to be less efficient than immersion programms, he’s still right, as long as none of them is “well-designed” according to his definition.
I take these quotes to mean that BE is superior to immersion for illiterate children. However:
[list][]I don’t buy the assertion. There’s no reason why a child who can’t read shouldn’t be able to quickly speak a new language that she’s immersed in. [] Most Latin American immigrant chidren of school age can read. My wife did some volunteer work in an impoverished town in Honduras. Even those poor Hondurans had a one-room school house where kids learned to read. (No advanced education was available, but that’s another story.) The proponents of BE foist it on all Hispanic kids, not just the illiterate ones. So, even if Kimstu’s assertion is correct, it’s being used to as an excuse to apply the program much more widely. This is an example of the “bait and switch” technique commonly utilized by sleazy used-car salesmen.
I’d just like to point out that BE has more of a purpose than simply teaching another language. The idea of BE (as I understand it) is that the day is divided into separate phases. Those phases that are concerned with things like history, math, and science are taught in the native language. The part of the day that is concerned with learning English is done in English. The reason for this is that if you are teaching a kid who doesn’t understand English things like math and science in English instead of his native language then he falls behind in those subjects. BE is a way to prevent that falling behind from occurring.
I think Neurotik has it right. While English immersion may be good for teaching English, it is damn poor at giving kids the rest of the things that they need to learn in order to keep up in school. Imagine if someone suddenly decided that all your classes should be taught in Japanese. You may learn Japanese, but you’d likely fail all your classes- severly limiting your future sucess.
It wasn’t these kids decision to move somewhere where they do not know the language. Why should we set them up in a program that could have serious reprecussions for their future just so that we can sleep a little easier knowing that at least they can speak English- like good Americans?
The problem with BE is that it may help the student from falling behind in other classes, but they often do not catch up in English. Not being able to speak English in the US is a HUGE disadvantage, much greater than being behind in history or math or science. This is assuming that these kids will remain in the US after they mature.
Kids WILL pick up languages through immersion. You must help them along, of course, with some special language help, but coddling them will only cripple them in the future. It doesn’t take all that long to become capable in a new language, especially for children. The months they will spend learning the language will be the most productive months of their education.
My philosophy for children is, learn to communicate first, then learn the other stuff.
Well, OK, but I didn’t notice that many people skilled in the English language in the US! 
Seriously, I am not sure that there is an answer to this debate, although when I hear the kind of passionate attack December is making I become a little wary about the cause.
If I may speak as a person who learned English as a third language in Europe starting at the age of 11 or 12 in an International school, there is a lot to be said for immersion (if classes in English from 8:30 to 3:15, mothertongue at home, and other language I had no clue about in the rest of the country counts as immersion). I remember that I often had to ask a girl who spoke my native language for help in catching up during the first months.
At the same time, I doubt I would have learned English well or quickly had I been given tutoring in my native language. My father showed me how reading is the best way to pick up a language, and I was on my way. I eventually solved the comprehension problem by copying work en masse from others until I learned enough English to operate properly. Falling behind at that stage in school work is hardly dangerous, since it is fairly easy to catch up. I do agree with Cheesesteak that communication is, as always, the most important thing.
Immersion may work for most kids, but there are people (including children) who are simply not linguistically gifted. I think it really boils down to the child.
Abe, you say that your father showed you the value of reading in picking up a language. Do you think the immersion program would have been as successful if your parents (and you) were more or less illiterate when you began the program?
Certainly not as successful, but I probably would have obtained a pretty good grasp of English even had I not picked up reading. Difficult to say…
december:
. . . which is funny, because nothing in those quotes – or anything else Kimstu has written in this thread, for that matter – even implies as much.
Please provide a link to “all the research” (or, if you’re willing to back-peddle a bit, some of the research).
And researchers aren’t supposed to cite their own research . . . why, exactly?
As long as we’re slinging around anecdotes with reckless abandon, I might as well chime in:
I grew up and went to school in Hell’s Kitchen which, for those who are unaware, is a largely hispanic Manhattan neighborhood. My good buddy Ed spoke no English at all the first day of K-4. I’m not sure how long he spent in the school’s bilingual ed. program, but I have definate memories of his being fluent in 1st Grade (I went to a different school for K-5, so I don’t know just how quickly he picked it up). For as long as I can remember, he has spoken English perfectly (good grammar, no accent). He was saluditorian (sp?) of our class.
Being where we were, I knew (probably) dozens of kids who went through the same program. Many had accents, but all were perfectly fluent.
OK, I was exaggerating. There’s plentyof research on both sides. However, the actual results in Callifornia of discontinuing BE have been dramatically wonderful. You might be able to find the NY Times Magazine article I cited in a library. IIRC it was published 2 or 3 years ago.
I didn’t object to Karshen citing his research; I objected to characterizing his article as “balanced.” One would expect a researcher to agree with himself.
You have a point as a matter of logic. However, these articles are used to support public policy decisions. Karshen’s article will be cited as evidence to continue BE.
If 99% of BE programs don’t work, then a huge percentage of Hispanic Americans will be semi-illiterate in the language of the country where they live. It’s cold comfort to tell these people that a “well-designed” BE program would have worked.
BTW being from a large immigrant family, I’ve seen the limited opportunities available to relatives without good English skills. It’s cruel to be promoting a program that simply isn’t effective.
Can someone define “bilingual” and “immersion” for the purpose of this discussion. Seriously. I’m not sure if English as a Second language programs would be included in bilingual or immersion or if they just haven’t been brought up.
Well…
It seems to be that the need for submersion will vary depending on the age of the person learning, and on the individual’s history of language acquisition.
I was raised bilingual and educated trilingual. I had no problem achieving fluency in my third language (French).
If that were just I, I’d say I might be a language genius. I am most definitely not a genius in any way, but just as normal as a few hundred people I went to school with who also received bilingual or trilingual schooling with the same positive results.
I find that overall our ‘native’ languages have as a result been a little jumbled and as anyone who has read a few of my posts will know, I will often be found wanting in my syntax and grammar, (but then again I’m dyslexic on top of all that).
This jumbling of languages is apparently normal for children who are bilingual by initial language acquisition, who often display some strange idiosyncrasies in both languages, but otherwise are just as fluent as a monolingual native speaker in both languages if they are maintained into adulthood.
In this post a while ago in GQ I ventured to provide some views by the expertise on the subject. In that post you shall also find the following links to resources and studies in the field:
‘The acquisition of language by children’ by Jenny R. Saffran, Ann Senghas, and John C. Trueswel.
’Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants’ by Jenny R. Saffran, Richard N. Aslin, Elissa L. Newport
A study by Newport and Johnson about levels of fluency achieved by native Chinese speakers acquiring English as a second language shows the variance of fluency to be achieved depending on the age when learning starts.
This study by Newport and Jonsson shows that there is an extended period during which the language acquisition capacity is retained to a degree during which the level of immersion will make a certain difference.
[This study](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/kstansbu/ psych230/bilinguallanguagesign.pdf) (pdf) is abut bilingual language acquisition and debunks the myth that bilingual language acquisition will result in a lowered language capacity in both languages, while showing the somewhat odd effects I spoke of earlier in others and myself.
There are some conflicting views on the matter, this is an overview of the arguments at hand.
Sparc