Debating Bilingual Education

Bilingual education has been debated many times on whether or not it is helping those students that are non native English speakers. After passing the Bilingual Education Act in 1968 and the Equal Education Opportunity Act, the topic of bilingual education began to create headlines. After passing both acts, schools began teaching the basic academic subjects in student's native language then would move on to teaching English. After increasing funding for these programs, critics pointed out the "alarming dropout rate and lack of English-language proficiency.” States like California where there are the most Spanish speakers were not showing the results expected after having these programs. Then the question arose whether or not to require all schools to abolish bilingual education and teach all in English or continue having the bilingual programs. A debate was broad casted in 1997 on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer between Ron Unz and James Lyons. Ron Unz believed that all public schooling should be taught in English while James Lyons, executive director of the National Association of Bilingual Education, supported bilingual education. Ron Unz said that bilingual programs should only be carried out for older kids, such as 14 or 15 years old who don’t know any English and are put in public schools. He pointed out that children have an easier time learning another language; having them in a classroom where English is only taught would make them learn the language quickly. Meanwhile, James Lyons said that bilingual education "has made it possible for children to have continuous development in their native language, while they're in the process of learning English." He also said that when English is being taught to a 14 or 15 year old, they are taught to speak in an "unaccented form." Most of these students are either first generation or second generation families. Ron Unz said that the reason the United States should abolish bilingual education is because, for example California, only 5 or 6% of all students that don’t know English, learn English. The goal was that all these students learn English but instead only 5% did. James Lyons argued that only 1/3 of the children in California who don’t know English are receiving a bilingual education; the other 2/3 are not. Lyons then made a point that said that “the child who learns English but doesn’t learn any of the other academic subjects taught in school is not going to succeed.” Using Spanish as the medium of instruction, students do much better. The debate came to a close when it was not so much questioning if bilingual education was to blame for the students not being able to read or write, but the poor school systems the US has. A student attending a “good” school should be able to learn English without having a bilingual program and a student attending a “poor” school needs a bilingual program was what the debate ended with.
Both men bring up very good points and it's very hard to choose a side. I agree with Mr. Lyons that bilingual education is very much needed especially for older kids who aren’t native English speakers, but then I look at what Mr. Unz said about children learning a second language quicker. If this is true, then a bilingual program is not needed. They can learn so much more when they are in a classroom all taught in English but then again, it’s very hard for a child to teach him/herselves. Like Mr. Lyons said, “using there native language as the medium of instruction” is something that should be considered. In my personal opinion, (for the given time period) bilingual education should have not been abolished but schools needed to go about it differently. They needed to find a better and stronger why to teach English but also not forget the needs of a non-native speaker. They need to be taught in a way that they learn yet be self-reliant of the learning if they want to succeed.

Margaret Warner, Ron Unz, and James Lyons " Debating Bilingual Education," Annals of American History. [Accessed February 1, 2010].