�鶹������ý

The history of dual language learner (DLL) and English language learner (ELL) education in the U.S. has been a pendulum swinging back and forth between English-only and bilingual education policies and practices for decades (for an explanation of these terms, click ). While , three states with large populations of language learners have instituted English-only measures that greatly limit the ways that ELLs are taught.

The English-only Movement

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, voters in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts passed ballot measures that dramatically limited language use with regard to how ELLs were instructed. The first — ��— passed in California in 1998. This measure required that all ELLs be instructed exclusively in English and effectively eliminated that taught students in their home languages. Instead, the mandate required that ELLs be taught in for one year before being transitioned into mainstream classes. In just a few years, the percentage of ELLs enrolled in some form of bilingual education plummeted from to .

In 2000, passed in Arizona. Similar to California’s law, this measure repealed existing bilingual education laws and required that ELLs be educated through for one year. In 2002, Massachusetts passed , which eliminated the state’s existing classes and instead required that ELLs be enrolled in , also for one year. Together, the ballot initiatives in these three states narrowed instruction for about ^[1]. (A side note: On the same night in 2002 that Question 2 passed in Massachusetts, a similar measure called was defeated in Colorado.)

Critics of English-only policies note that there is little evidence to support the notion that ELLs can acquire academic English in just one year.

But why? Critics of English-only policies note that there is little evidence to support the notion that ELLs can acquire academic English in just one year. In fact, it takes about . So why were these states — each with a large ELL population — so eager to change instruction? Arguably, one could say that policymakers had the students’ best interest in mind: prior to each of these initiatives, ELLs were achieving below their non-ELL peers (click to understand the challenges of getting valid data on these supposed achievement gaps) and that the new English immersion programs might help close that achievement gap (Spoiler: it didn’t happen). Another, more practical explanation is that these states were looking to cut costs by minimizing the amount of specialized instruction ELLs receive. Regardless of the motivations, the English-Only movement’s successes have not led to meaningful — or even detectable — improvements for ELLs in these states.

The Impact of English-only Policies

Several studies have been conducted to understand the impact of English-only policies on ELLs, many of which are summarized in UCLA professor Patricia Gándara’s . The book’s introduction notes that these English-only policies for ELLs “do not appear to meet the courts’ mandate to show success over time” (for more on federal laws and court cases impacting ELL education, ).

Impact evaluations conducted in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts since the passage of English-only policies have been largely unfavorable. For the most part, achievement gaps between ELLs and non-ELLs in California have stayed constant or even since the laws’ passage. Additionally, when compared to ELLs in states without English-only laws, in Arizona. Perhaps worse, the passage of English-only laws in Massachusetts saw both and .

Impact evaluations conducted in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts since the passage of English-only policies have been largely unfavorable. For the most part, achievement gaps between ELLs and non-ELLs in California have stayed constant or even increased since the laws’ passage.

Moreover, research comparing ELLs in English-only and bilingual education programs has provided substantial backing for the latter. For instance, a meta-analysis of studies on ELLs in Arizona showed for students in bilingual over English-only programs.

Another Swing of the Pendulum

Just as the English-only policies in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts were a shift towards one extreme; there is evidence that the pendulum is swinging back towards bilingual education. For instance, the is on the ballot in 2016. If passed, this initiative would allow for languages other than English to be used during ELL instruction. Similarly, the bill was recently introduced in the Massachusetts State Legislature. If passed, it would allow districts to choose the type of language programs available to ELLs. Additionally, according to the organization , nine states formally recognize students’ bilingualism at graduation, California among them, and fifteen more states, including Massachusetts, are in the process of developing similar initiatives.

Stay tuned for next week’s DLL Reader post that returns to federal education policy in order to examine the impact that No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have had on DLLs and ELLs.

��^[1] Estimated using 2002-2003 data.

—

This newsletter is part of �鶹������ý’s Dual Language Learners National Work Group.��. To subscribe to the biweekly newsletter,��, enter your contact information, and select “Education Policy.”

��“