Bilingual Education Limit Is a Bad Idea

The three-year limit on bilingual education now under consideration in the House of Representatives is a bad idea (“House Bill Would Downplay Bilingualism,” May 15). There is no evidence that children languish in bilingual programs without acquiring English. Recent data from New York City, for example, show that for children in bilingual education who began school in kindergarten, 73% had acquired enough English to do schoolwork in the mainstream after three years.

Most students in bilingual programs in upper grades are those who came to the United States at an older age. These latecomers face a daunting task: Many come with inadequate preparation and need to acquire English as well as assimilate years of subject-matter knowledge.

Many studies, including the New York report, have confirmed that those who come with better preparation in their first language do much better in acquiring English.

There is no evidence that children will be better off in all-English programs after three years. Nearly every published review of the effectiveness of bilingual education has concluded that bilingual education is at least as effective for English-language development as English-only alternatives and is usually more effective. Several studies confirm that additional first-language study, or participation in “late-exit” bilingual programs, does not impede English-language development.

Moreover, continued development of the first language has clear advantages. Numerous studies show that those who develop both languages to a high degree do better on tests of divergent thinking and language. Also, it is in the national interest to encourage bilingualism: We need, after all, interpreters, sales personnel and diplomats.

Stephen Krashen

Professor of Education, USC