« ESL Teachers Who Use Technology | Main | Speaking English with Difficulty »

Is English Learning Slowed Down with Bilingual Education?


I'm returning to an issue I mentioned in an earlier post, about whether providing the option for students to take tests for many years in their native languages—and by extension, whether offering bilingual education—results somehow in a slowing down of students' learning of English.

I raised this issue when blogging that U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has objected to a provision in the House Education and Labor Committee's "discussion draft" for reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act involving English-language learners. The provision would permit school districts to give ELLs state tests in their native languages for up to five years, with the option of extending that time for two more years on a case-to-case basis. "That's simply too long," Ms. Spellings wrote in a letter to leaders of the committee, and added that the provision would provide an incentive to "slow down" the learning of English rather than speed it up. Now, states can give students tests in their native languages for three years, with an option of extending that time for two additional years.

Some people in the field think extending the amount of time for students to take native-language tests will encourage more school districts to offer bilingual education. The secretary's comment prompts me to speculate that by saying that permitting the use of native-language tests for many years is a disincentive to speed up the learning of English, she is also meaning to imply that providing bilingual education for a long time may "slow down" the learning of English.

I might be wrong to make such an assumption but, regardless, I put the following question to two experts in the field: Is the learning of English by students slowed down by some kinds of bilingual education?

Both researchers agree that English-language learners in grades 1-3 taking bilingual education may not test as well on an English test as ELLs in English-only programs, but by the end of elementary school, the scores on English tests even out.

Here's an excerpt from an answer by Deborah Palmer, an assistant professor of bilingual/bicultural education at the University of Texas, Austin: "Kids in bilingual programs often don't test in English in the early elementary grades as [well as] kids in English-only programs, but those test scores even out by 4th or 5th grade, and bilingual education kids will stay higher over the long term, into middle and high school, and be more successful academically in English and other areas. English-only/English-as-a-second-language instructed kids, meanwhile, tend to lose ground after 3rd grade, and show a flat or even downward trend in test scores in middle and high school. I'm referring here to two large-scale studies: Ramirez et. al. (1992) and Thomas and Collier (2003)."

Donna Christian, the president of the Center for Applied Linguistics, got some input from researchers at her center and responded with the following comments:

"I assume that 'learning of English' includes oral language and literacy (and probably learning of academic content through English). ... It's not accurate to say that the learning of English is slowed down because students are learning two languages at the same time. The students who are becoming bilingual may be on a slightly different trajectory in their English-language development than their English-only peers or their English-language-learner peers who are receiving instruction all in English. ... Our research in two-way immersion programs shows that ELLs who begin the program by 1st grade are quite proficient in oral English by 3rd grade. Literacy skills in English show a lot of variation, some of which relates to the grade level at which literacy instruction begins in the program."

"...In the early years of elementary school (grades K-3), ELL students who learn through two languages may score lower on English-medium tests than students who are instructed only through English; however, by the end of elementary school, ELL students in two-way and developmental programs tend to score at least as high as, and often higher than, ELL students who learn through English only. By the time students are in middle school, ELL students in dual-language programs tend to achieve at higher levels than students who only study through English. So not only do ELL students in dual-language programs achieve as well in English as their ELL peers who study only in English, but unlike most of their peers, they can read, write, and speak in their native language as well."

(Ms. Christian clarifies in her e-mail that she's referring to the kind of bilingual programs that provide instruction in two languages through elementary school. Those programs differ from transitional bilingual education programs, which typically move children into full-time English instruction after a few years of bilingual education.)

A logical follow-up question is: Are the tests in English a good measure of whether ELLs are learning English?

As you can see, it's not so easy to get a simple answer to what may seem like a straightforward question.


It's amazing - as you said - that such a clear question gets such cloudy answers. I am so involved on an educational level with this question as well as a personal one where my three children are being raised to know Spanish as a second language (with English as their native language).

It's so evident that the young elementary aged children need and succeed more with both native and target language presented in a side-by-side/bilingual format. The retention is better long term as mentioned in the replies in your post, but I heard nothing, nothing about self-esteem,pride to speak in the native language nor self-confidence levels.

Let us all remember that this debate is about the children going through our system, that they need to come out on the other side, the end of elementary school feeling great about their heritage and feeling great about themselves. Immersion takes that away in so many facets that I don't even want to go there.

These young children (ages 5-8) are still acquiring skills in their native language and need to have both languages presented in a fun, approachable format that leads to lifetime language learners with a love of other cultures and other languages.

Happy Educating! ¡Sea feliz educando!

Beth Butler
Founder of The Boca Beth Program

Perhaps the reason the answers seem cloudy is because the wrong question is being asked. The aim of NCLB for the ELL subgroup is to close the achievement gap on content area assessments between ELLs and native English speakers. A better question to ask in relation to this aim, then, is "What is the most effective way to bring ELLs up to grade level, to sustain high achievement throughout the upper level grades, and to increase high school graduation rates for this subgroup? As both researchers quoted above seem to agree, bilingual education seems to do a much better job of achieving this aim.

If, however, the aim is to get the test scores up as quickly as possible (but still not substantially closing the achievement gap even momentarily, and allowing test scores to drop again later when achievement has more serious long-term consequences), then all-English programs might provide some temporary relief to policy makers. But is this really what is best for the kids?

Your follow-up question is if tests in English are good measures to determine if ELLs are learning English. What kind of test? The norm referenced tests used for native speakers? Tests designed to specifically measure English language development for ELLs? I agree with a previous comment that the questions themselves need to be refined; otherwise, the generalized questions deliver too generalized answers leading to misunderstandings and inaccuracies. To answer the question as it is, I believe that school children should be tested in English using a testing method designed to measure ELLs progress in English. The goal will be to transition them, but what benefit is there in giving a student who speaks little or no English a test they cannot read yet. What use is it?

The bottom line is we need to stop worrying so much about getting ELLs to speak English quickly and start paying more attention to the quality of student learning.

ELLs need accessible instruction that supports them to learn both academic English and academic content. Let's change our focus from speed of learning English to equity of access so ELLs can attain high academic standards.

In answer to the question: Are the tests in English a good measure of whether ELLs are learning English? The answer is yes and no. But the situation isn't black and white (pardon my pun). Measurement must exist on a continuum. So, yes, because at present there is no other way to measure competence/performance. And, no, because of the length of time it takes to learn a second or foreign language.

Another problem relates to the test writers themselves: how sensitive are they to second/foreign language development? Do test writers make too many assumptions about language development, e.g. that language learning is across-the-board homogeneous? Are test writers data driven or are they financially driven?

Comments are now closed for this post.

Follow This Blog


Most Viewed on Education Week



Recent Comments

  • Charles: ELLs in our state ARE required to take State standardized read more
  • Melissa: Maybe I'm just becoming jaded, but this feels to me read more
  • Anonymous: Are you kidding me....UNO is an organizaion that literally destroys read more
  • Meg Baker: Are any schools using ACCESS scores for purposes other than read more
  • Dr. Mendoza: This is great news i must say. Hopefully this DREAM read more