Key Policy Milestones and Directions in the Education of English
Prepared for the Rockefeller Foundation Symposium
Leveraging Change: An Emerging Framework for Educational Equity
April 5, 2001
This paper discusses key policy issues on the improvement
of educational outcomes for English Language Learners (ELLs).
Some broad conclusions are drawn based on a combination of
considerations from laws, policies and research:
- ELL students have needs in the areas of both English
language development and content knowledge development;
the obligation to meet these dual needs on the part of
schools is explicit in Lau, based on the Civil Rights Act.
- It takes a considerable amount of time for ELL students
to develop English proficiency – certainly much longer
than one year, and it depends on the aspect of language
proficiency as well as the socioeconomic background characteristics
- Bilingual education is more effective than English-only
alternatives, all things being equal.
- There are challenges to the effective education of ELL
students that accumulate as students progress through grade
levels, such that the gap with native English speakers
increases rather than decreases;
- Standards-based reform and Castaneda provide important
frameworks around which reform for ELL students can proceed,
although they raise difficult questions;
- A major challenge appears to be students in inconsistent
programs as well as students who move across different
- Legislation, although needed, will not solve problems
of political will and technical capacity; and
- Proposition 227 and similar legislation to ban bilingual
education capitalize on symbolic politics but are disconnected
with the knowledge base and from realistic, sustained reform.
A number of policy directions are laid out. In general,
it is the conclusion of this paper that the educational discourse
about the education of language minority students needs to
move from an understanding of language to the development
of academic content and the improvement of schools. If we
are to talk about language at all, it should be about innovations
to tap immigrant languages as a national resource. Some concrete
suggestions for policy leaders are made at the end of the
The initial reports from Census 2000 are starting to come in.
They already show the expected increases in the numbers of foreign-born
immigrants and people from diverse ethnolinguistic backgrounds.
Foreign-born residents now make up over 10.1 percent of the entire
population, compared to 7.9 percent in 1990. This trend is amplified
in states such as California, where the foreign-born population
in 2000 increased to 26 percent, up from 22 percent in 1990.
In 2000, it has been estimated that there were 8.6 million school-age
children of immigrants (Camarota, 2001). Even taking a conservative
rough estimate that 40 percent of these students are in need of
special language assistance in schools (this is necessarily rough,
since there is no agreed-upon operational definitions of Limited-English-Proficiency,
or English Language Learner, ELL), one may estimate that there
are 3.4 million ELL students in the nation. California, through
its school language census, reported 1.48 million ELL students
in 2000. However one looks at it, the numbers are huge.
In this paper, I would like to offer a quick review of some key
policy issues that have emerged from the now 30+ year old experience
of the educational policy, practice and advocacy communities in
addressing the improvement of the educational status of ELL students.
I will then draw upon these points to raise broader policy directions
for national leaders, including the philanthropic community.
Key Policy Issues
In order to help us crystallize the key policy issues, I have
organized this presentation around some key graphics.
Obligations of Lau
Figure 1 (click
to see figure) shows a picture of Kinney Lau, a student in the
San Francisco Unified School District in 1970. A lawsuit filed
on his behalf against the school district on March 25, 1970 charged
failure to provide, firstly, an opportunity to learn English and
secondly, meaningful access to the educational program offered
by the district. This case worked its way up through the courts,
and in 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs on
the basis of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It stated:
There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students
with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers and curriculum; for
students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed
from any meaningful education. (Lau v. Nichols 414 U.S. 563-572).
Without specifying a remedy, the Court ruled that equal treatment
was not equal opportunity, and that a program appropriate to the
language needs of the students was required.
How quickly do students learn English. Figure
2 shows data on the development of English language abilities
among ELL students in a relatively privileged suburban school
district. The slide is taken from a paper that my research group
published (Hakuta, Goto-Butler, and Witt, 2000) pulling together
available data on the question of how long it takes youngsters
to learn English. The data are quite clear in showing that it
can take 3 to 5 years to attain oral proficiency, and academic
English proficiency can take 4 to 7 years. This estimate uses
data from a school district that is considered highly successful
in moving students out of the ELL designation. These data would
not surprise researchers who have investigated the second language
acquisition process deeply, but it may come as a surprise to
policymakers who would like to see students acquire English faster,
say in one year (more on this later). In any event, the point
of this slide is to illustrate the long period of time it takes
for ELLs to attain various criteria of English proficiency, and
furthermore to understand that under Lau, it is imperative that
their content area development be allowed to grow even as they
Importance of Student Background
What factors affect the rate of English language development? Figure
3 shows the predictive power of native language proficiency
in English language development. These data come from a small
sample of Latino 3rd graders who were born in Mexico,
comparing their performance on standardized measures of English
and Spanish vocabulary development (where a score of 100 is equivalent
to the 50th percentile). The positive correlation
between the two languages is clearly observable.
Proficiency in the native language, especially the ability to
do well on formal tests in it, is also related to factors in the
family and home. Figure
4 illustrates the predictive role of the socioeconomic background
of the students. The data on these slides are taken from the California
Department of Education website, which reports, separately for
major ethnolinguistic groups, the numbers of ELL and FEP (fluent
English-proficient) children. These data are further separated
by grade level. Thus, for each ethnolinguistic group, one can calculate
a ratio of FEP to ELL students across the grade levels. These are
the numbers reported in the cells, and for each group, it can be
readily observed that the numbers are lower in the elementary grades
and increase as you proceed up the grade levels. Presumably, each
ethnolinguistic group has its own immigration history (and of course
variations due to subgroups within it), accounting for why some
groups have large proportions of FEP from the lower grades; also,
the groups with very recent immigration history, such as the Ukranians
and Punjabis, have new arrivals spread throughout the grade levels.
In any event, I have marked in light blue the cells with a ratio
of FEP to ELL that exceed 1.0. One rough interpretation of the
blue cells is that that is the point at which half of the ethnolinguistic
group becomes competitive in school (for example, in California,
a commonly adopted criterion for redesignation to FEP includes
scoring at or above the 37th percentile on the SAT-9
As can be readily seen, the Hmong, Lao, Cambodian, Spanish and
Tongan groups stand out. The groups in the graph, incidentally,
are sorted in ascending order by data we have culled from the 1990
Census for the mean income levels of the group, which appear in
the rightmost column of the table.
The bottom line of this figure is to underscore the importance
of socioeconomic factors in English language development. A bottom-line
policy implication of this fact is that "time limits" imposed
on access to special language programs penalize students who probably
most need special assistance, because they are slower in developing
English for reasons that are circumstantial to their socioeconomic
Language of Instruction: What’s Known and What’s Missing
Figure 5 is
a picture of Secretary of Education William Bennett sitting in
President Ronald Reagan’s cabinet. Bennett was perhaps the most
outspoken and influential critic of bilingual education as the
preferred method to address the needs of ELL students. In the early
days of responding to the Lau decision, the Office for Civil Rights
in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare asserted a kind
of imperative for bilingual education. As the memorandum regarding
Lau from OCR stated, "Because an
ESL program does not consider the affective or cognitive development
of students [in the elementary and intermediate grades], an ESL
program is not appropriate." This understanding that bilingual
education should be favored over English-only alternatives was
also written into law through Title VII of ESEA (otherwise known
as the Bilingual Education Act), by setting a cap on the percentage
of funds that could go to non-bilingual programs. As Secretary
of Education, Bennett launched a vigorous "cap attack" on
Title VII, successfully eroding the extent to which Title VII preferred
bilingual programs, such that by the last re-authorization in 1994,
virtually no constraints remained with respect to language use
in the programs funded.
Figure 6 shows
data on the relative effectiveness of transitional bilingual education
programs compared with English-only programs. These are based on
real data that we collected comparing students from a high-poverty
urban school district who were in bilingual and English-only program
schools, with English reading comprehension scores as the outcome
measure. The data show the students in the bilingual program ahead
of those in the English-only program. This is highly consistent
with meta-analyses of other comparison studies of transitional
and English-only programs (Willig, 1985; Greene, 1998). Greene,
for example, reports effect size of about .2 for measures of English
reading in favor of bilingual programs.
The point of the slide, though, is to show that in spite of these
positive effects of bilingual education programs, the gap between
the outcomes for ELLs and for native speakers is huge, and continues
to grow across the grade levels. The "white space" represented
in the bar charts shows what it would take for the students to
be "age-equivalent" in their reading performance. The
gap continues to grow as students progress through school. What
this graph tells us is that we have been fighting the bilingual
wars between the red and the blue programs, but it has been at
the expense of paying attention to the white space.
Standards-Based Reform and the Castaneda Model
Figure 7 is
a picture from 1983 of members of the National Commission on Excellence
in Education. I put this marker to note the beginnings of the era
of standards-based reform, followed by the 1989 Charlottesville
summit convened by the senior Bush presidency. This raises a number
of important policy issues regarding the inclusion of ELL students
in the mantras of this reform movement: "high standards," "all
students," "assessment," "accountability," "regulatory
flexibility," and "system capacity," among others.
Advocates for ELL students have been working through these issues
(see, for example, James Crawford’s 1999 book that devotes a chapter
to this issue). Agreement is easy at a general level: ELL students
should be held to the same high standards as all students, i.e., "all
means all", that it is unacceptable to place ELL students
outside of the accountability system, and so forth. But many questions
One way to conceptualize these issues is with respect to Figure
8, which represents a surprisingly wise ruling in a Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruling in 1981, Castaneda v. Pickard (648 F. 2d
989, 1006-07, 5th Cir. 1981), that helped define "appropriate
action" by a school district for ELL students. It identified
three prongs in meeting the definition: (1) programs must be based
on "sound educational theory"; (2) they must be "implemented effectively" with
adequate resources and personnel; and (3) after a trial period,
the program must be evaluated as effective in overcoming language
In analyzing the impact of standards-based reform on ELL students,
we can think of theories of teaching and learning of both English
language and content areas as comprising Prong 1. Effective implementation,
Prong 2, means paying attention to high standards, teacher preparation
to teach to these standards, school organization to support the
teaching and learning environment, and appropriate assessment tools.
Finally, Prong 3 would require rigorous evaluation of the outcomes
of the program with respect to English language development and
the meeting of performance standards.
There are many difficult questions that can be asked at each prong,
including an overarching meta-question: is standards-based reform
appropriate and effective in meeting the needs of ELL students?
For the moment assuming that it is, and that it would be unfortunate
for ELLs to miss the train since the train leads to greater resources,
we could ask questions such as:
Is there sufficient basis to conclude that bilingual education
is a more sound theory than English-only?
Is there a theory of English-only education?
In addition to content and performance standards that apply
to ELL students, should there be additional standards for academic
English language development?
What theories of staff adequacy, professionalism, and school
organization pertain to the school environment for ELL students?
Are the evaluation and accountability mechanisms fairly implemented
with respect to ELL students?
Are the data systems adequate for tracking longitudinal progress
of students (i.e., do the systems have memory)?
Are there incentives for program improvement for ELL students?
I would encourage this audience to think through the problems
that each prong raises.
Incoherent Programs and Program Improvement
Figure 9 tells
the story of New York City that suggests the importance of adequate
programs (New York City Board of Education, 2000). In this recent
report, longitudinal data were reported on the long-term educational
outcomes for LEP students, using exit rates as the criterion. The
graph shows the outcomes for a group of students who received bilingual-only,
ESL-only, and a third category which they called mixed. An important
caveat: these data are uncontrolled for SES, and we know that bilingual
tends to be offered in lower SES schools with larger concentrations
of ELL students. In any event, the data show the students in ESL-only
somewhat ahead of the bilingual-only (again, this fails to control
for SES); but my point is not the comparison of these two programs,
but rather the fate of the students in the mixed programs. This
is a bit like the white space issue in my earlier slide that showed
the controlled comparison of bilingual and English-only. We really
need to be paying attention to program quality, especially the
students who are in mixed (read: inconsistent, and possibly under-resourced)
Although I am a strong believer in the positive value of bilingual
programs, the New York picture also tells us that it is a terrible
thing to have an incoherent program, independent of language program
type. This is important for several reasons. First, not all program
labels are representative of the instructional methods they employ.
Second, even those programs that are representative of their labels
vary widely in their quality, and third, successful components
are likely to be found in a variety of programs that are being
run effectively. In effect, there is likely no ONE best model for
educating ELL students. What is critical is finding a set of program
components that works for the children in the community of interest,
given the goals, demographics, and resources of that community.
This set of components will (and should) vary depending on factors
that differ not only across but within immigrant groups, such as
students’ first language, SES, previous academic experience, community
and parental socio-linguistic climate, learner styles, and goals
for proficiency (additive v. subtractive). Teacher availability/
qualifications also play an important role. The best approach to
take is to look to basic research, which will inform us as to how
children learn best and under what conditions.
What has emerged from this thinking is a set of generally agreed
upon "best practices" that can and should be found across
program types to encourage the success of language minority students.
A typical list of key components can be found in a recent National
Research Council report that synthesized the research on effective
schools for language minority students (August & Hakuta, 1998).
The list includes the following: some use of native language and
culture in the instruction of language minority students, a balanced
curriculum that incorporates both basic and higher-order skills,
explicit skills instruction, opportunities for student-directed
activities, use of instructional strategies that enhance understanding,
opportunities for practice, systematic student assessment, staff
development, and home and parent involvement. Since the success
of language minority students does not hinge solely on the classroom
environment but also on that of the school, criteria for "good" schools
for language minority students have been developed as well. The
following are recommended school attributes: a supportive school-wide
climate, school leadership, a customized learning environment,
articulation and coordination between and among schools in the
district, school-wide coherence, rigorous standards for teaching
and learning, assessment and accountability, continuous evaluation,
and research of program effectiveness. Many of these strategies
for overall improvement of schools were derived and adapted from
successful improvements for high-poverty schools, where most ELL
students are found.
The Force of Law?
Figure 10 in
many ways tells the beginnings of a story about how far we have
come, but how far we still have to go. I have chosen a picture
of the old ESEA law (the 1988 version), Section 1014(d) that defines
which children are eligible for Title I (then Chapter 1) services.
The law reads:
(d) SPECIAL RULES. (1) Children receiving services to overcome
... limited English proficiency shall also be eligible to receive
services under this part, if they have needs stemming from educational
deprivation and not related solely to limited English proficiency.
Such children shall be selected on the same basis as other children
identified as eligible for and selected to receive services under
this part. Funds under this part may not be used to provide services
that are otherwise required by law to be made available to such
This law was indeed quite confusing. Interpreted literally, one
had to distinguish between educational needs deriving from LEP
status and educational needs deriving from low academic achievement;
furthermore, the basis for selection, in addition, are standardized
tests in English, which for ELL students measure primarily their
academic English proficiency. After much debate, including an important
study by Westat (Strang & Carlson, 1991) that documented problems
of eligibility of ELL students deriving from the assessment systems
in some school districts, the law was changed in 1994. The new
law called for assessments that provided for:
the participation of all students; reasonable adaptations and
accommodations for students with diverse learning needs; and the
inclusion of LEP students who shall be assessed, to the extent
practicable, in the language and form most likely to yield accurate
and reliable information on what such students know and can do,
to determine such students’ mastery of skills in subjects other
This is a very clear message and a vast improvement over the previous
law in promoting access to Title I resources (considerably larger
and more widely dispersed than Title VII funds).
So what is the depressing part of this? Figure
11 will give a sense of it. It is a letter from the Assistant
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education addressed to
Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the
California Department of Education. The letter is a strict and
severe admonition from the U. S. Department of Education to the
California Department of Education that it is "substantially
out of compliance" with the sections of Title I having to
do with assessment and reporting. The letter goes on to amplify
the many ways in which the use of the SAT-9 falls short of Title
I legislation, including the fact that the test is not aligned
to state standards, and the serious ways in which use of the
test with ELL students is out of compliance with the law. Strong
stuff, it seems. Well, the letter is dated January 19, 2001.
Clearly, it is important to get policies for appropriate inclusion
of ELL students written into law. But equally clearly, where
there is inadequate political will and technical capacity for
implementation, even a law passed in 1994 ends up being a weak
admonition issued six years later, one day before the end of
the administration that structured and signed the law into place.
The final figure, Figure
12, is of Mr. Ron Unz, author of Proposition 227 in California
that banned bilingual education. It is important to address this
initiative not just because California has about a third of the
nation’s ELL students, but also because Mr. Unz has been active
in many other states, including Arizona (where it passed in November),
New York, Colorado, and Massachusetts.
Much of the excitement about California comes from a New York
Times article that reported on the supposed miracle of a school
district in Oceanside, California. I reproduce here some basic
points about the California
story from my website, which contains
Any given school district's pattern of performance by LEP
students should be considered in light of statewide patterns
of performance by LEP and by native English speakers; our analysis
shows that there have been statewide increases in SAT-9 scores
for both LEP and native English speakers, following patterns
that are virtually identical – large increases in the early
grades, and then tapering off in the fourth grade and beyond.
This is not a Proposition 227 effect, but something much more
specific to SAT-9.
The increases are due to a number of possible causes. Advocates
of reforms such as Proposition 227, class size reduction, and
increased school accountability would certainly like to give
credit to their own individual causes, but there are other
explanations that must also be considered. For example, schools
and districts have taken the SAT-9 much more seriously this
past year, and have taught to the test. Younger children's
scores are probably more likely to benefit from increased attention
by teachers and school officials to the importance of the test.
Also, districts seem to vary considerably in who they included
as LEP or as non-LEP, and in percentages of the LEP students
that they tested. Of course, the results of a school or district's
LEP students would depend a great deal on who they count as
LEP and which LEP students were tested. Each claim about "success" for
LEP students would need to be scrutinized. It is certainly
premature to claim any sort of victory for Proposition 227.
SAT-9 is a poor excuse of a measure of English development
and academic achievement for LEP students. The test was developed
to give normative data in reading and math for native English
speakers. The test measures things that are qualititatively
different from what would be expected of students learning
English. Consider an analogy. Imagine if you had just finished
a first set of golf lessons in a driving range, and then you
were taken out to a golf course, asked to play a full 18 holes,
and kept score. Unless you were a prodigy, your score would
be virtually meaningless, measuring luck much more than it
would your ability. The golf score is very meaningful for those
who have played for a while (Tiger Woods), but not for beginners
(being one, I can testify that I never keep score – I keep
score in a different way, which is the percentage of solid
contacts I make per swing). Given that SAT-9 is a weak measure
of English for LEP students, we can only expect it to tell
us very gross information. It is certainly not refined enough
to tell us about differences between program labels, such as
bilingual vs. English immersion. (Would I really be able to
tell the difference between the effectiveness of different
golf instructional approaches based on golf scores for beginners?).
The data from 1998 to 2000 show that all districts show rises,
pretty much following statewide patterns. There are increases
in school districts that have retained bilingual education,
in school districts that had English immersion even before
Proposition 227 (and therefore were not impacted by the policy),
and in Oceanside, which has been acknowledged by the press
for having switched faithfully from bilingual to English-only.
Because SAT-9 is a bad measure for LEP students (golf scores),
the scores for schools and districts are characterized by a
lot of random noise, but they did rise in a rough way. That
is, all the scores are rising, but the margins of errors are
so large that it is not possible to distinguish between different
types of language programs.
Why did Oceanside LEP students show such big gains from 1998
to 2000? Partly, one has to wonder how it managed to be so
low in 1998 – the average LEP 2nd grader at the 12th percentile
(compared to LEP at the 19th percentile statewide), and the
average 3rd grader at the 9th percentile (compared to 14th
percentile statewide). So, they started out among the lowest
in a group of students who score low to begin with. One of
the laws of statistics is that the lower the beginning score,
the more it will be expected to rise upon retesting. Also,
an important perspective is that one can pretty easily find
schools report having well-run bilingual education programs,
that have equally dramatic gains as did Oceanside.
A final comment about Proposition 227 from a historical perspective.
It is a regressive initiative in that educators of ELL students
have been trying to get away from using program labels as the
basis for policy. The hope has been to transcend the "cap
attacks" of the Bennett years and to build on improving
system components for effectively educating ELL students. Thus,
the thrust has been in the direction of full inclusion in standards-based
reform, adherence to the Castaneda model with coherent and
well-resourced programs, and recognizing that the evaluation
studies of bilingual education has found modest benefits. That
is hardly the direction that Proposition 227 has taken.
Summary Observations and Recommendations
A number of summative observations can be
ELL students have needs in the areas of both English language
development and content knowledge development; the obligation
to meet these dual needs on the part of schools is explicit
in Lau, based on the Civil Rights Act.
It takes a considerable amount of time for ELL students to
develop English proficiency – certainly much longer than one
year, and it depends on the aspect of language proficiency
as well as the socioeconomic background characteristics of
Bilingual education is more effective than English-only alternatives,
all things being equal.
There are challenges to the effective education of ELL students
that accumulate as students progress through grade levels,
such that the gap with native English speakers increases rather
Standards-based reform and Castaneda provide important frameworks
around which reform for ELL students can proceed, although
they raise difficult questions;
A major challenge appears to be students in inconsistent programs
as well as students who move across different programs;
Legislation, although needed, will not solve problems of political
will and technical capacity; and
Proposition 227 and similar legislation to ban bilingual education
capitalize on symbolic politics but are disconnected with the
knowledge base and from realistic, sustained reform.
As for policy recommendations, I would reiterate some recommendations
that I made a few years ago to congressional leaders at a program
of the Aspen Institute (Hakuta, 1998):
In general, the educational discourse about the education of language
minority students needs to move from an understanding of language
to the development of academic content and the improvement of schools.
If we are to talk about language at all, it should be about innovations
to tap immigrant languages as a national resource. Policy leaders
can help facilitate this in several ways.
Make Use of What We Know about Language.
It is time to acknowledge that we are at the point of diminishing
returns in understanding the language variables for the purposes
of program development and evaluation. We know that English language
development takes three or more years; individual student progress
in English language development is not a function of the motivation
or resistance by the student, and is strongly related to their
educational capital; bilingual education is slightly better than
English immersion or ESL approaches, but won’t fix everything.
Policy leaders can take these findings and make a clear declaration:
We know enough about language. Immigrant children are learning
English promptly. So let’s move on with dissemination of these
facts, and begin addressing the bigger problem of academic standards
and school improvement.
Focus on the Capacity for Program Improvement.
The key decisions about education are made at the state and local
levels, and it is the responsibility of national level policy leaders
to provide the tools to develop local capacity. The common tools
used for standards-based reform are the public articulation of
standards, student assessment and accountability, professional
development, and parental involvement. In each of these, the question
of the inclusion of ELL students arises, and legislators can take
the leadership in demanding answers to how this is occurring.
The system for assessment and accountability around the standards
demands immediate attention if ELL students are to benefit from
current reforms. ELL students are often assessed for their English
proficiency, but not for content knowledge. Currently, most ELL
students are excluded from local, state and national assessment
and accountability systems. Worse, they may be included inappropriately
in high stakes tests, such as in California.
The area of the professional preparation and development of teachers
is another critical problem. The shortage is not just limited to
bilingual education teachers, but also extends to teachers of all
programs that serve ELL students. The recently completed efforts
of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to develop
standards for Bilingual and ESL Teachers should be applauded as
the "deluxe" model, but the magnitude of the problem
is staggering when we look at the other elements of professional
preparation such as schools of education, state certificate requirements,
professional development models, and Title VII incentives. In addition,
current knowledge about the effectiveness of strategies for teacher
education and the assessment of teacher knowledge and skills is
very limited. Policy leaders should demand and support a systematic
inquiry into ways to understand, support and coordinate all of
Encouraging the Value of Bilingualism
One of my favorite quotes about bilingualism (not bilingual education)
comes from the great scholar Joshua Fishman (1966), who wrote: "many
Americans have long been of the opinion that bilingualism is ‘a
good thing’ if it was acquired via travel (preferably to Paris)
or via formal education (preferably at Harvard) but that it is
a ‘bad thing’ if it was acquired from one’s immigrant parents or
grandparents" (pp. 122-123). Research shows that bilingualism,
in the sense of a strong command of two or more languages, is a
good thing regardless of whether you are a first-generation or
seventh-generation immigrant. But we hold split standards that
lead us to value bilingualism for people of privileged backgrounds,
but not for people who are recent immigrants.
Policy leaders can play an important role by acknowledging and
promoting the value of bilingualism for personal growth as well
as for the nation’s security and economic interests. They could
encourage local community leaders to develop mechanisms that would
support bilingualism to its fullest potential, and use the linguistic
prowess of immigrant bilingualism to set high standards for all
Americans. These are not the current goals of programs (with the
exception of maintenance and two-way programs). My own personal
bias is that attention to the full development of the native language
does not have to occur in the elementary grades, and that the middle
and high school years could be used effectively for this purpose.
Currently, innovation is limited because of what I consider an
unwarranted fear that English is threatened, not strengthened,
August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1998). (Eds) Educating language-minority
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Camarota, S. (2001). Immigrants in the United States – 2000: A
Snapshot of America’s Foreign-Born Population. Washington, DC:
Center for Immigration Studies. http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back101.html
Crawford 1999 Bilingual Education: History, politics, theory and
practice (Fourth Edition). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services,
Fishman, J., Nahirny, V., Hofman, J. & Hayden, R. (1966).
Language loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton.
Greene, J. P. (1998). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of
Bilingual Education. University of Texas: The Tomas Rivera Policy
Hakuta, K. (1998). Improving education for all children: Meeting
the needs of language minority children. In D. Clark (ed.), Education
and the development of American youth. Washington, DC: The Aspen
Hakuta, K., Goto Butler, Y., and Witt, D. (2000). How long does
it take English Learners to attain proficiency? University of California
Linguistic Minority Research Institute: Policy Report 2000-1, available
on-line at http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu/RESDISS/hakuta.pdf
New York City Board of Education (2000). ELL Subcommittee Research
Studies: Progress Report. Brooklyn: New York City Board of Education.
Strang, E. W. & Carlson, E. (1991). Providing Chapter 1 Services
to Limited English-Proficient Students. Final Report submitted
to the Office of Policy and Planning, U. S. Department of Education