At beginning of the 20th century bilingual education was the preferred method of teaching European immigrants who did not speak English. By 1910 German-English , French-English and Spanish-English schools were flourishing. World War I, however brought renewed patriotism and a fear of foreign governments and languages. By the end of the 1920’s most schools were English only despite the fact that the Congress ruled it unconstitutional to prohibit language instruction in a pupil’s native tongue. After decades of English only instruction that was failing the immigrants, the Bilingual Education Act was passed in 1968. This provided monetary support to the schools so that they could implement native language instruction to help the bourgeoning immigrant population. After so many years of English only instruction this proved to be difficult since few teachers were equipped to teach bilingually. The Canadian system was used as a model for this instruction however it did not work as well in California with Spanish speakers who were predominantly from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The Canadian system was designed for an affluent population who had developed a high literacy in their native language. Literacy learned in the native language translates to the language being learned (Lecture, 2013).

By 1974 legislation required schools to implement programs to help the non-English speaking children to attain the necessary language skills to be successful. It was suggested that the schools use programs that were considered to be successful according to the research. The schools would further need to provide trained teachers and resources to implement this as well as to institute assessments that would assess the students progress in attaining English proficiency (Lecture, 2013).

In 1998 SEI was implemented in California. Following this in 2000, an English-only initiative (Proposition 203) was proposed in Arizona. This came at the same time as a lawsuit (Flores v. Arizona) that alleged that there were not sufficient academic opportunities for the English language learner. These two ideas were combined. Now teachers, superintendents and administrators were required to obtain an SEI endorsement in Arizona (Lecture, 2013).

In 2001 the No Child Left Behind Act (formally the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) was passed. This newly revised legislation omitted mention of bilingual education putting it on the schools to make sure that all students show evidence of academic achievement regardless of their language abilities (Lecture, 2013). This meant that schools would be responsible for bringing all students achievements up, even English Language Learners (Lecture, 2013).

States differ in their approach and implementation of programs designed to support the English Language Learner. In California, Massachusetts and Arizona the English Immersion approach is the method of choice. They provide students with very limited instruction (if any at all) in their native languages. Instead they are given a maximum of 1 year to become fluent in English so that they can be in regular English only classrooms (Lecture, 2013). This is done even though research suggests that it takes 5-7 years to become literate in a second language. If students are not literate in their native language it can take up to 10 years to become literate in that second language.

In 1979 in the state of Washington, my state, the legislature created the TBIP (Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program). School districts are given a great deal of latitude in their determination of what works best in their districts. They can implement ESL or bilingual programs. Students are given support for an undetermined amount of time.. until such time as help is no longer needed and the student is academically ready to be transitioned into the regular classroom. The average time an ELL students spends in this program is 2-3 years. ESL instruction is used more often than bilingual (Pennucci & Kavanaugh, 2005).

The English-only legislation appears to be politically motivated rather than academically motivated. In fact, according to Padilla et al, (2013) the movement has ties to a restrictionist anti-immigration movement which suggests that the English Only legislation has broader and more negative implications than just wanting to make English the official language. The research does not substantiate an English only approach. A 5.2 million dollar study was conducted to compare transitional bilingual educated students (those who were quickly mainstreamed) with late exit educated students (a system that allowed students to maintain their native language while they learned English. This was extended for many years). English immersion students had the lowest scores in almost all academic areas whereas the late-exit bilingual students had the highest scores when they were all tested in English. This study suggests that the English only approach is not the best one. More research needs to be done to determine the best approaches. There are 18 states that have enacted laws that state that English is the official language: Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (Padilla et al, 2013).

References:

Padilla A., Lindholm K., Chen K., Duran R., Hakuta K., Lambert W., & Tucker G. (2013). The English-Only Movement: Myths, Reality, and Implications for Psychology. Retrieved May25, 2013 from http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/english-only.aspx#.

Pennucci, A. & Kavanaugh S., (2005) English Language Learners in K-12: Trends, Policies, and Research in Washington State. Retrieved May 25, 2013 from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/05-01-2201.pdf.

Lecture (2013) Retrieved May 23, 2013 from www.gcu.edu.