7/28/00 4:10 p.m.
GOP Draft Platform: Kids Lose
But the bilingual-education lobby wins big.

By Jim Boulet, Jr., Executive Director English First

he draft version of the 2000 Republican Party Platform states that "fluency in English must be the goal of bilingual education programs." The choice of the word "goal" gives the game away. This particular goal has remained unmet after 30 years of trying. Thus, bilingual education is to continue to be judged on its noble intentions, rather than its dismal results.

A major study of the effectiveness of bilingual- education programs by Dr. Christine Rossell and J. Michael Ross asked if transitional bilingual education actually maximized "the highest English language achievement of which that student is capable." The answer was no.

Of the 35 sound studies in the field as of the time of their research, only eight found that transitional bilingual education helped students learn a second language faster than those programs that did nothing but place children in an all-English classroom. Just one of the studies found an improvement in math.

Just as a poor marksman can improve his score by trying to hit a much bigger target, bilingual-education proponents have expanded their target drastically over the years. In the words of Walter Secada:

Proponents of . . . bilingual-education programs [think they] should be evaluated against broadly construed standards of success: development of English and native language skills, development of dual-language literacy, academic achievement in either language, enhanced student self-concepts and understanding of other cultures, lowered drop-out rates, post-secondary education and employment, and other similar criteria (emphasis added).

In other words, if a child could read only Spanish and had high self-esteem, the "bilingual" program was a success.

The actual interest of these so-called bilingual- education programs in teaching English is rather low. This can be inferred from one fact: While bilingual education has been a part of federal law since 1968, it was not until 1994 that Congress required these programs to have as many as one teacher in the entire program fluent in English. This omission led the Houston (Tex.) Independent School District to import illegal aliens from Mexico, give them a test in Spanish and then send these "bilingual" teachers off to a classroom. Which prompts the obvious question: If the teacher does not speak English, precisely how is the student to learn the language?

Bilingual-education programs are also based on a perverse incentive system in which failure increases funding. Every student kept in a bilingual-education program is money gained for the school district. Even Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.), one of the most liberal members of Congress on education issues, sought to get the then-Director of the Office of Bilingual Education to admit this basic fact — without success — during a 1977 hearing:

Mr. Miller: "What happens when a student is transferred from a bilingual class to a monolingual class, as to funds?"

Dr. Molina: "The intent of Congress is once a child begins to learn academic studies in the English language then that child is no longer qualified for Title VII funds." . . .

Mr. Miller: ". . . But if in the following term the student is transferred to a mono-speaking (sic) class the funds are removed and the student falls on the burden of whatever funds are available on the district level?

Dr. Molina: "That is correct."

Mr. Miller: "Would that tell you something as to why students are not transferred?"

Dr. Molina: "No."

Mr. Miller: "Would it give you a hint?"

Dr. Molina: "No. I would be surprised if the school district didn't have other students they could move into bilingual classes."

Nothing had changed over two decades later, when the Los Angeles Times investigated the matter:

School districts receive extra state aid based in part on their count of students with limited English. And they face no penalty if those students fail to advance. Explaining why many schools statewide year after year fail to move any students into English fluency, Lois Tinson, president of the California Teachers Assn., said: "School districts see the bucks coming in."

Given these facts, a formal GOP endorsement of the good intentions underlying such programs is both an educational disaster for million of immigrant children and a threat to this nation's linguistic unity.