Critics of bilingual education have enjoyed an advantage in the debate over its effectiveness, many researchers maintain: Where scientific evidence is contradictory, the easiest position to defend鈥攁nd the hardest to disprove鈥攊s that results are inconclusive.
If there is 鈥渘o sound basis in research鈥欌�� for favoring bilingual education, argues Chester E. Finn Jr., the U.S. Education Department鈥檚 assistant secretary for educational research and improvement, 鈥渓et us permit diversity, innovation, experimentation, and local options to flourish.鈥�'
The department鈥檚 message on bilingual education has the virtues of simplicity, flexibility, and apparent even-handedness. At the same time, its position has appeal for nonexperts who have no way of sorting out the complex arguments of educational psychologists, linguists, and statisticians.
It hardly matters that evidence of bilingual-program successes continues to grow, says Stephen D. Krashen, a professor of linguistics at the University of Southern California. The critics, he says, demand still more proof.
Skeptical of the department鈥檚 characterization of research findings, Representative Augustus F. Hawkins, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, last spring sought help from the U.S. General Accounting Office.
The G.A.O. assembled a panel of 10 experts to review major studies and to evaluate statements by Secretary of Education William J. Bennett and other department officials on issues related to the education of limited-English-proficient children.
A report on the GAO survey, released March 11, said a majority of the experts disagreed with the department on five major points. The experts concluded that:
- 鈥淭he research showed positive effects for transitional bilingual education on students鈥� achievement of English-language competence"鈥攁 justification for maintaining the federal law鈥檚 requirement for native-language instruction in most programs receiving Title VII grants.
- 鈥淓vidence about students鈥� learning in subjects other than English,鈥� although less abundant than data on second-language acquisition, also 鈥渟upported the requirement for using native languages.鈥�
- Research provided negligible support for the promise of such alternative methods as structured immersion, an English-only strategy for teaching language-minority children. The GAO report notes that the experience of Canadian immersion programs 鈥渋s not necessarily transferable to the United States, because of differences in the students鈥� backgrounds, families, communities, schools, and cultural settings in the two countries.鈥�
- Claims that high dropout rates among Hispanic students reflect the failure of bilingual education had no scientific basis because of the lack of research on long-term outcomes.
- Overall, the research was conclusive enough to indicate which specific groups of children would most benefit from native-language instruction.
In response, Mr. Finn objected strenuously to the GAO鈥檚 methodology鈥攊ts selection of experts, studies, and statements representing the department鈥檚 views. He questioned the objectivity of the agency, a nonpartisan arm of the Congress, and argued that the votes of the panel proved nothing.
But the GAO stood by its report. It said the experts had been chosen for their diversity of views, and noted that a majority had either been recommended by the department or been cited in support of the department鈥檚 position on bilingual education. In addition, the GAO said, the experts considered a broad synthesis of the research, along with extensive official statements on the issue by the department.
As part of its comments to the GAO, the department asserted that 鈥渙ur position on bilingual education is valid and unscathed by this inept report.鈥�'
That contention awaits the judgment of the Congress as it prepares to vote this year on whether to extend Title VII. Bilingual 糖心动漫vlog say they hope the GAO鈥檚 study, by providing a platform to independent experts, will make it harder for lawmakers to ignore their successes in teaching LEP children.
