The Linguistic Minority Parents' Perceptions of Bilingual Education

Steven K. Lee
California State University, Dominguez Hills

Abstract

The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to examine the linguistic minority parents' perceptions of bilingual education and (b) to investigate their views on bilingual education. This study was motivated by the re-emerging controversy surrounding the issue of whether or not public schools should continue to provide bilingual education programs for linguistic minority students. It was hypothesized that most parents of linguistic minority students did not fully understand the objectives and goals of bilingual education. It was also hypothesized that irrespective of their understanding level, most linguistic minority parents supported bilingual education as long as it provided their children the opportunities to develop English skills while providing them equal access to the core curriculum. Based on a sample of 290 adult subjects, all of whom were of Latino background, the study found that the majority did not know the different models or programs of bilingual education. Nevertheless, three out of four parents (76%) thought that the use of two languages—students' home/primary language and English—facilitated their children's development of English. Interestingly, if provided the option to enroll their children in mainstream classes, two-thirds (67%) responded that they would prefer that their children be placed in English-only classes.

Sections of the Article

Introduction

Controversies related to bilingual education in the United States are not a recent phenomenon. Ever since the first Europeans set foot in the New World, inevitably bringing with them their native tongue among other cultural resources, the people of the United States have dissented on whether monolingualism or multilingualism should prevail in the country. Although English had become the dominant language as early as the late seventeenth century (Crawford, 1995), the continuous influx of immigrants made language "assimilation" difficult. Although there have been numerous attempts in the past couple of centuries to proclaim English as the official language of the United States, the general approach of the federal government has been to enforce language policies and strategies to state governments. Nevertheless, ambitious movements within a segment of the American population to create an "American-speaking" citizenry have prevailed throughout the history of the United States (Baugh & Cable, 1978).

The federal government enacted into law the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, partly in response to the social and political climate of the late 1960s. The influx of immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries enabled the formation of a stronger social base from which to demand recognition for the existence of cultural pluralism in the United States (Lessow-Hurley, 1996). The linguistic minority communities became increasingly more resistant to the idea of language and cultural assimilation, which devalued and restricted their social and political mobility. The 1960s also coincided with research findings, notably the Coral Way project, which revealed the benefits and effectiveness of dual-language instruction. Prior to the Lau v. Nichols (1974) decision in which the Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs under the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, only one state, Massachusetts, offered a state-mandated bilingual program in the United States (Lessow-Hurley, 1996). The decision affirmed the need for schools to provide "education on equal terms" for all children, including linguistic minority students. Although the number of states mandating dual language instruction for linguistic minority students eventually increased subsequent to the decision, the goal of the law was, in essence, to provide remedial English instruction (compensatory and transitional) to children who were disadvantaged due to limited English proficiency than to provide opportunities for the children to become proficient bilinguals (enrichment instruction). Thus, dual language programs were for the most part aimed at mainstreaming the children into the English language rather than encouraging them to develop skills in two languages.

With the continuous influx of immigrant children from non-English-speaking countries entering our schools, coupled with America's perceptions of dismal academic achievement of our students, anti-immigrant sentiment is becoming increasingly popular in many parts of the United States, particularly in those states with high proportions of linguistic minority residents, including California. In June 1998, Californians voted on Proposition 227, or the "English for the Children" initiative, to decide whether to continue or discontinue bilingual education in the public schools. This initiative was approved by the majority of the voters, effectively disallowing California's public school students access to instruction or assistance in their native language. Teachers are prohibited from using any language other than English to instruct and communicate with their students, unless the school has received exempted status from the state.

In California alone, there are some 1.4 million limited-English students enrolled in the public schools. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, which has an enrollment of about 681,000 students, 310,000 (46%) of its students are classified as limited-English proficient. Opponents of bilingual education argue that bilingual programs are "watered down" programs that are ineffective in preparing linguistic minority students to engage in academics using English as the medium of instruction. They also claim that bilingual education is a waste of financial resources.

In 1997, California allocated approximately $240 million to bilingual programs in the state. California school districts also received nearly $90 million in bilingual funding for fiscal 1997 from the federal government (California Dept. of Education, 1998). There have been several studies conducted in the past 15 years (e.g., Hakuta, 1984; Hosche, 1984; Huddy & Sears, 1990; Shin & Gribbons, 1996; Shin & Kim, 1996; Shin & Lee, 1996) examining the public's opinion on bilingual education. Interestingly, both proponents and opponents of bilingual education have often cited results from these studies, particularly media polls, to support their position on this debate. For example, advocates of the "English for the Children," an anti-bilingual education group, claimed that 83% of the minority respondents on a Los Angeles Times poll (October 15, 1997) opposed bilingual education. Citing the same poll, supporters of bilingual education, including Krashen (1999), asserted that their conclusion was based on misinterpretation of the results. According to Krashen, only 26% were actually against bilingual education since the majority supported the use of some native language with English (57%) and the use of native language until students were ready to learn English (17%). In the views of bilingual education advocates, this was an overwhelming support (74%) for bilingual education. Studies by Shin and colleagues (1996) seem to support Krashen's assertion. They found that most Korean parents supported the principles underlying bilingual education. Nevertheless, when asked specifically if they thought using the native language in the classroom allowed their children to be in par with their peers on the subject matter while they developed English, only 32 % of the parents thought so. It seems that although parents were supportive of bilingualism (developing two languages), they did not support the use of native language in the classroom. The researchers concluded, "this may indicate that many of the parents do not entirely understand all the rationales for bilingual education" (p. 149).

What seems critical, then, is more than mere data on subjects' support for or opposition to bilingual education. There is an untested assumption underlying such surveys that the public has a full understanding of what bilingual education is, that the public is aware of the effectiveness of bilingual education programs, and that the public has an equally vested interest in this issue. In reality, the data may be of little value to understanding the bilingual education controversy if they are merely reflections of xenophobic or ethnocentric views. In other words, even though understanding the parents' attitudes toward bilingual education are important, especially because they have the potential to influence bilingual policies and practices at the district and school levels, they are in fact secondary to understanding the parents' perception of what bilingual education is. That is, the parents' views on bilingual education are significant only if they are based on accurate understanding of what bilingual education is.

The purpose of this study was to better understand the perceptions and views of linguistic minority parents whose children were enrolled in bilingual education programs. This study examined the following questions: (a) Are they aware of the goals and objectives of bilingual education? (b) Are they cognizant of the different models and programs of bilingual education? (c) Do they believe their children should be taught in English and/or in the home language? (d) Do they support bilingual education? The motive for this study was to understand the basic underlying issue manifested in the bilingual education controversy: Do linguistic-minority parents possess a sufficient understanding and knowledge to take a stance on this debate? Also, do most linguistic minority parents support the movement to discontinue bilingual education? Any decision at the district or state level must take into consideration the views of the linguistic minority parents who are most affected, but often most powerless, in making educational decisions.

Method

Multiple-choice type questionnaires, written in English and Spanish, were distributed to 400 Latino parents whose children were enrolled in bilingual education classes at six elementary and four middle schools in the greater Los Angeles area. Of the 400 questionnaires distributed, 290 questionnaires (73%) were returned. Of the 290, 121 (42%) were from parents whose children were attending elementary school and 169 (58%) were from parents whose children were attending middle school. The subjects had been in the United States on an average of just over 13 years and their children had lived in the United States for approximately seven years. About 27% of the children were United States born and 73% were foreign born. On average, the children had been enrolled in a bilingual education program for just over three years. All the subjects responded that they use Spanish as the primary language in the home to communicate with their children. The questionnaire was pretested with 30 randomly selected parents (26 Spanish and 4 English) for clarification and appropriateness of the questions.

The questionnaire, distributed in early 1998 prior to the June election, contained 11 questions, of which three were optional questions related to previous responses, and one a fill-in-the-blank question. The questions were as follows:

Questions 1-2:

Approximately two-thirds (68%) of the subjects responded that they knew or understood the objectives/goals of bilingual education. Of those who responded that they knew or understood the objectives/goals of bilingual education, the majority (58%) of the subjects responded that the objective/goal was to help students develop both English and Spanish. Just under one-third (30%) of the respondents thought that the objective/goal was to help students develop English skills only, and approximately one in ten (12%) responded that bilingual education was to help students develop and maintain their home/language skills (see Table 1).

Questions 3-4:

Of those who responded that they knew or understood the objectives/goals of bilingual education, only 26% answered that they knew the different models/programs of bilingual education. However, when asked to write the name of the model/program, only six subjects responded. Two subjects simply wrote "Bilingual Education," two "ESL," one "SDAIE," and one "Integrated Bilingual Education." Thus, even among those who claimed to know the different models/programs, only a few could identify them (see Table 1).

Question 5:

When asked what language(s) teachers should use to instruct linguistic minority students in the classroom, about three-fourths (76%) responded that teachers should use both English and the students' home/primary language. About one-fifth (21%) responded that teachers should use only English, and 3% thought only the students' home/primary language should be used in the classroom (see Table 2).

Question 6:

In regards to the subjects' views on whether or not they believed instruction in the students' home/primary language slowed down the development of English, 41% responded that it did and 59% said that it did not. Thus, although more than half the subjects did not think using the students' home/primary language interfered with the development of English, a significant percentage thought that the use of the home/primary language had a negative effect on English development (see Table 1).

Question 7:

When asked if the subjects thought the use of two languages to instruct their children interfered with their English development, the majority (76%) of the subjects responded that it did not and about one in four (24%) responded that it did (see Table 1).

Question 8:

Related to the parents' desire for what language(s) they would like their children to develop, the majority (70%) of the parents hoped that their children develop two languages, Spanish and English. However, almost one in three (27%) parents responded that they would like their children to develop English exclusively. Only 3% of the subjects expressed their desire for their children to become monolingual Spanish speakers (see Table 2).

Questions 9-10:

On the question related to whether or not subjects supported bilingual education, the majority (83%) of them supported bilingual education. Only 17% of the subjects responded that they do not support bilingual education. Among those subjects who opposed bilingual education, approximately half (52%) of them objected to bilingual education because they believed all students should be treated equally; about one in four (26%) believed that only English should be used in the schools; about one in ten (11%) responded that bilingual education was ineffective; and 5% stated that bilingual education was a waste of tax dollars. Almost 6% declined to respond to this question (see Table 1).

Question 11:

Pertaining to the parents' preferences for their children's program assignment, approximately two-thirds (67%) of the subjects responded that they would like their children to be enrolled in mainstream classes, if given a choice, and one-third (33%) of the subjects preferred that their children remain in the bilingual education program. (see Table 1).

Discussion

Several interesting observations can be made from this study. First, although the majority (68%) of the subjects claimed that they knew or understood the objectives/goals of bilingual education, and 26% responded that they knew or understood the different models and programs of bilingual education, only a few could actually name the models/programs of bilingual education. This seems to suggest that although parents of linguistic minority students were aware that their children were enrolled in a bilingual program, they had little understanding of the different models and programs of bilingual education. Only six subjects could name the models/programs, of which two subjects simply referred to as "bilingual education." This rate is even lower than the percentage (22%) of non-Hispanics who provided a reasonably accurate description of bilingual education in Huddy and Sears' study (1990).

Second, approximately 76% of the subjects thought that teachers should use both Spanish and English to teach linguistic minority students. This rate is similar to the one reported by Shin and Kim (1996) in which 70% of the parents responded that they supported the placement of their children in a bilingual classroom where both Korean and English were used for instructional purposes. When subjects were asked whether or not using two languages to teach students may retard the development of English, the same percentage (76%) of parents responded that using two languages did not interfere with their children's English acquisition. However, 41% of the subjects responded that using only the home/primary language for instruction interfered with the development of English language skills. In other words, almost half the respondents did not think the exclusive use of the home/primary language was conducive to English language development. Thus, it is quite evident that parents believed programs in which two languages—Spanish and English—are used in the classroom are most effective in helping their children to develop English skills. This perception on the effectiveness of dual language immersion program is in fact supported by many researchers (e.g., Bykont, 1994; Cummins, 1981; Hakuta, 1985; Krashen, 1988; Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, & Pasta, 1991).

Third, in contrast to most media polls (e.g., Los Angeles Times & Orange County Register, 1998) in which they reported high support for the "English for the Children" initiative within the linguistic minority communities, the majority (83%) of the parents surveyed supported bilingual education programs. Thus, this study supports Krashen's claim that media reports were flawed in their interpretation of poll results. It is interesting to note, however, that approximately two-thirds (67%) of the parents surveyed responded that they preferred to have their children be placed in mainstream classes if given the choice. Two hypotheses could be developed to explain what appear to be contradictory responses. It is possible that in spite of their support for bilingual education, the subjects may feel that (a) their children no longer need to be enrolled in bilingual education classes and/or (b) there is some stigma attached to having their children enrolled in bilingual education classes.

The majority of the parents indicated that they thought the use of two languages in the schools was helpful to their children's English development, and that they desired their children to become bilingual. Yet, two-thirds of the parents responded that they would prefer to have their children placed in English-only classes. It is possible that there were many parents who believed that their children possessed adequate Spanish skills, and that they had developed a sufficient level of proficiency in English to be in mainstream classes. If such is the case, the issue for these parents is no longer one about preference but one related to the need for improvements in language assessment for the language minority students. It is also possible that because of media reports, which portrayed bilingual education to be ineffective and unpopular, the parents may have developed a perception that bilingual education is a form of segregation in public education. Thus, although linguistic minority parents may value the educational benefits of bilingual education in principle as found in this study, they may prefer to have their children enrolled in mainstream classes to prevent them from becoming "victims" of what they perceive as "separatism."

This study has shown consistencies in many questions related to bilingual education. For example, 21% of the subjects responded that teachers should use only English for instruction, 24% thought that using two languages negatively affected the development of English, 27% desired their children to develop English competency (and not Spanish), and 17% did not support bilingual education. Thus, the results of this study seem to indicate that only about 17% to 27%, or about one in five parents supported the English-only instruction in the schools. A close analysis reveals that among those parents who indicated preferences for their children to become monolingual English speakers, 83% were those parents whose children were born in the United States and 17% were those parents whose children were foreign-born. Thus, it is apparent that parents of American born children placed less value on their primary/home language than those parents whose children were born in another country.

Conclusions

This study has found that despite the participants' perception that they understood the objectives of bilingual education, most parents did not recognize the different models and programs. Thus, it seems critical that prior to inviting language minority parents in the discussion of bilingual education there needs to be a development of an appropriate education program to facilitate a better understanding of what bilingual education is. In the absence of such education efforts, parents' views and positions on bilingual education may be based on inaccurate perceptions of the objectives of bilingual education. Nevertheless, the majority of the linguistic minority parents surveyed supported bilingual education. Most subjects thought that the use of the students' primary/home language and English in the classroom was essential to helping their children to become bilinguals. About one in five parents indicated that they want their children to become monolinguals (English only) and about the same percentage desired teachers to use English as the medium of instruction in the classroom. Among those who opposed bilingual education, the majority (52%) of the subjects responded that all students should be treated equally. Thus, rather than being concerned about equal access to education, their interest was mainly in equal treatment.

Implications

1. Educators must help linguistic minority parents to develop an increased understanding of the different models and programs of bilingual education. Parents cannot make critical decisions if they are not properly educated about bilingual education programs to assume those responsibilities. It is suspected that their perception of a bilingual education program is one in which the primary language is used almost exclusively in the classroom.

2. Schools must develop better procedures and instruments for assessing linguistic minority students. Those students who have developed a cognitive-academic language proficiency in English and whose parents prefer to have them placed in mainstream classes should have the option to be enrolled in English-only classes.

3. Most parents support dual immersion (two-way) type programs in which students are provided the opportunity to develop two languages simultaneously. The majority of the parents supported bilingual education classes in which both the primary/home language and the target language were used. Only 3% of the parents surveyed supported the use of the primary/home language exclusively in the classroom for instructional purposes. Thus, exclusive use of the students' home/primary language in the classroom was perceived by linguistic minority parents as debilitating to their children's English development. It is theorized that many parents (bilingual and non-bilingual) may have taken a position on the bilingual education debate based on an inaccurate perception that the students' target languages were used almost exclusively in all bilingual education classes.

4. Of those parents who did not support bilingual education, 52% opposed it because they believed all students should be treated equally. This seems to suggest that there are parents who believe bilingual education is a form of institutional segregation. Some parents may be taking a position on bilingual education not so much from a pedagogical perspective but from a pseudo-cultural debate. In the latter case, there is potential for opposing bilingual education solely based on social and political viability. Educators must lead in the efforts to educate parents and demonstrate that the primary concern of the academic community is to provide optimal learning opportunities for all students.

Although the majority of the linguistic minority parents surveyed supported bilingual education, there were between 17% to 27% who did not support the effort to educate public school students to become bilinguals—in practice and in goals. This segment of the population warrants further examination. Are public schools not providing effective bilingual education programs to respond to the needs of the children of these parents? What types of bilingual programs are most supported by parents? Have linguistic minority parents developed inaccurate perceptions of bilingual education?

The results of this study suggest that bilingual programs in which only the home/primary language is used across the curriculum are least likely to receive support from the linguistic minority parents. It is suspected that parents whose children are in classes where only the home/primary language is used are most critical of bilingual education. This study has also revealed that most linguistic minority parents do not possess an adequate understanding of the different models of bilingual education. Thus, parental involvement must include education on bilingual education programs. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that, among those subjects who opposed bilingual education, only 11%, or about 5% of the total sample, thought that bilingual education was ineffective. And, less than 2% of the total sample stated that bilingual education was a waste of tax dollars. Thus, what seems more critical at this time—at least for the linguistic minority parents—is not about whether to continue or discontinue bilingual education, but about helping parents to develop accurate perceptions of bilingual education. This study has found that there is fervent support for bilingual education among linguistic minority parents. The challenge for public schools is to develop programs that meet the needs and expectations of the parents and students.

References and Tables

Barabak, M. (1997, October 15). Little support for bilingual education found. Los Angeles Times, p. A-1.

Baugh, A. C., & Cable, T. (1978). A history of the English language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beykont, Z. F. (1994). Academic progress of a nondominant group: A longitudinal study of Puerto Ricans in New York City's late-exit programs. Doctoral thesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

California State Dept. of Education. (1998). Sacramento, CA: Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education.

Crawford, J. (1995). Bilingual Education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Trenton, NJ: Crane Publishing Co.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles.

Decker, C. (1998, April 13). Bilingual education ban widely supported. Los Angeles Times, p. A-1.

Hakuta, K. (1984). Bilingual education in the public eye: A case study of New Haven, Connecticut. NABE Journal, 9, 53-76.

Hakuta, K. (1985). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Hosch, H. (1984). Attitudes toward bilingual education: A view from the border. El Paso: Texas Western Press.

Huddy, L., & Sears, D. (1990). Qualified public support for bilingual education: Some policy implications. Annals of the American Academic of Political and Social Science, 508, 119-134.

Krashen, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Prentice Hall.

Krashen, J. (1999). Condemned without a trial, a bogus argument against bilingual education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Press.

Lessow-Hurley, J. (1996). The foundations of dual language instruction. New York: Longman.

Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., Ramey, D. R., & Pasta, D. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Vol. I. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.

Shin, F., & Gribbons, B. (1996). Hispanic parent perceptions and attitudes of bilingual education. The Journal of Mexican American Educators, 16-22.

Shin, F., & Kim, S. (1996). Korean parent perceptions and attitudes of bilingual education. In R. Endo, C. Park, & J. Tsuchida (Eds.), Current issues in Asian and Pacific American education Covina. CA: Pacific Asia Press.

Shin, F., & Lee, B. (1996). Hmong parents: What do they think about bilingual education? Pacific Educational Research Journal, 8, 65-71.

Wall, S. (1988, May 14). Controversy in 2 languages bilingual education: Prop. 227 vote nears, school district officials face tough choices. Orange County Register, p. A-1.

TABLE 1: Perceptual and Opinion Questions

 

Questions	Yes	No
Do you understand the objectives/goals of bilingual education?	68%	32%
Do you know the different models/programs of bilingual education?	74%	26%
Do you believe learning in the home/primary language retards the development of English?	41%	59%
Do you believe learning in two languages retards the development of English?	24%	76%
Do you support bilingual education?	83%	17%
If you had a choice, would you prefer to have your child(ren) enrolled in English-only classes?	67%	33%

TABLE 2: Language Preference

 

Questions	L1	L2	Both
What language(s) do you think teachers should use in the classroom?	3%	21%	76%
What language(s) do you wish your child(ren) to develop?	3%	27%	70%