Sorting out what we know about teaching language minority children is a complicated task. The debate is at least as much about politics and emotions as about pedagogy and science. And preconceived positions often influence both the slant and interpretation of the research. In any body of research, differences in focus, approach and methodology across studies make it difficult to identify conclusive findings. On a polarized issue like bilingual education, critics are pleased to highlight such problems as evidence that the research can’t be trusted. Of course, the criticism itself often stems from bias; studies of poor quality are sometimes cited as definitive simply because they support a critic’s position.

Despite these difficulties, the three most technically rigorous reviews of the research to date do provide some conclusions. National Research Council (NRC) studies in 1992 and 1997,¹ along with a 1998 meta-analysis² offer some guidance to those who believe bilingual education programs should be reformed, not thrown away. Findings from these studies include:

• Timeframes for learning English vary widely, yet students with strong native-language proficiency are more likely to develop greater English proficiency.

• Native-language use is one effective component among many that educators must be free to use to promote academic success for English language learners.

It’s clear, in short, that no one program works for all children. It’s also clear that native language instruction is no magic bullet—just as no other single program component would be. Taken together, these findings imply a need for local autonomy, an interrelationship between what’s desirable and what’s feasible, and an effort to move the debate beyond program labels and language of instruction to the broader set of issues schools must address to ensure the academic success of language-minority children.

In the 1997 NRC study, a committee of nationally-recognized researchers led by August and Hakuta notes that the beneficial effects of native-language instruction are clearly evident in programs labeled "bilingual education" and also appear in programs labeled "immersion."³ This NRC committee also conducted a rigorous review of the research on effective schools and classrooms and found the advantages of native-language use to be a prominent theme, "even in exemplary programs designed to provide instruction primarily in English."

The committee therefore advises educators to move from thinking of programs as "all or nothing" treatments (i.e. student is either in program or not) to thinking of program components – features available to meet the differing needs of particular students. As the NRC report notes, "Two students in the same program could receive different elements of the program; moreover, programs that are nominally very different – especially the most successful ones – may have very similar characteristics." Among the common characteristics cited are:

• some native-language instruction, especially initially;
• for most students, a relatively early phasing in of English instruction; and
• teachers specially trained in instructing English-language learners.

Finally, the committee accepted the conclusions of the 1992 NRC panel of the Committee on National Statistics, which saw positive relationships "consistent with empirical results from other studies and that support the theory underlying native language instruction."

In his 1998 meta-analysis, Greene concluded that LEP students who are taught using at least some of their native language perform significantly better on standardized tests (of all tests in English, and tests in English reading) than similar students taught only in English. "The fact that the studies of bilingual programs with random assignment, which is the highest quality research design, have even stronger results greatly increases the confidence in the conclusion that bilingual education positively affects educational attainment."

Greene compared the use of some native language to English-only instruction, since "program labels…have no consistent meaning in the evaluations [studied], nor are the detailed features of many programs fully described; the only division of programs that can accurately and consistently be applied is whether native languages are used in instruction or not." He notes that his meta-analysis could not address the questions of how long students should be in programs offering primary language instruction; how much native language should be used in instruction; and what age groups are most appropriate for these techniques.

Greene also found that the estimated benefit of using at least some native language in instruction is about one-fifth of a standard deviation, or about 20% of the one standard deviation "achievement gap" often noted between minority and white students on standardized tests nationwide. This conclusion appears to complement the 1997 NRC study findings, which noted that educating language-minority students effectively is not just about helping them learn English, but helping them learn the academic core curriculum as well.

The NRC committee identified the following attributes of effective schools and classrooms that benefit all students, especially English learners:

• supportive but challenging schoolwide climate (including aligning teacher, student, and family beliefs, assumptions, and expectations toward high academic achievement);



• strong instructional leadership at the school level;



• customized learning environment, adapted to meet the identified instructional needs of students;



• articulation and coordination of programs and practices within and between schools



• use of native language and valuing of home cultures as resources to be built upon, rather than liabilities to remediate;



• curriculum that balances basic and higher-order skills;



• explicit skills instruction for certain tasks, particularly in acquiring basic skills and learning strategies;



• opportunities for student-directed activities (small group work on conceptual tasks, peer tutoring) particularly in using language to make sense or create meaning;



• instructional strategies that enhance comprehension (sheltered instructional approaches, calling attention to language while using it, providing background knowledge and building on previous knowledge);



• opportunities for practice (built-in redundancy, extended dialog and instructional conversation);



• systematic student assessment to adjust instruction to students’ needs and improve program practices in a timely way;



• high-quality, sustained staff development that improves classroom practice; and



• family involvement to build supportive environments at home and home-school connections.

With respect to effective practices, see also Brisk’s criteria for creating a good school, quality curricula, and quality instruction for English language learners, summarized in Chapter 6, "Beyond the Debate", in briefing binder appendix.⁴

¹ Meyer, M.M, and Fienberg, S.E. (1992). Assessing Evaluations Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Panel to Review Evaluation Studies of Bilingual Education, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

August, D., and Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children: A Research Agenda. Committee on Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of Limited-English-Proficient and Bilingual Students, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

² Greene, J. (1998). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, in collaboration with University of Texas at Austin and Harvard University. Claremont, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. The document is included in briefing binder appendix.

³ See program models, in Definitions and Terms, above.

⁴ Brisk, M.E. (1998). Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.