The question over whether or not English-Language Immersion Programs (ELIP) are a “solution” or "cure-all" for educating non-English speaking children in Texas has come under much debate and controversy in the current Texas Legislature.

As quoted by Irving ISD superintendent Randy Stipes in Sunday's Dallas Morning News, "The state requires bilingual education…it is the law [in Texas]." 

Texas law since 1973 has required bilingual education to be provided whenever 20 or more children in any one grade level share a foreign language and are not fluent English language speakers.

In using California's formal errors in their mandated bilingual education program, Texas policymakers and bilingual education critics can learn from programs that have failed despite their attempts to improve bilingual education for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. Keep in mind that the educational future of all Texas children is at stake when we make unsound decisions. 

A quick overview of the current situation concerning bilingual education in Texas will shed much needed insight on the problem at hand.

For starters, one of the first reforms involving the transition of bilingual education programs to ELIP began with the passage of Proposition 227 in 1998, which abolished bilingual education programs in California.

In 2002, a study entitled ¿Exito en California? (“Success in California?”) conducted by education researchers from Arizona State University found that increased scores on the SAT-9 (Stanford Achievement Test) did not indicate a closing of the achievement gap between LEP students and non-LEP students.

In 2004, James Grissom, an analyst with the California Department of Education, found that students in the California ELIP were not becoming fluent in English or scoring any higher on achievement tests. In the same year, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a non-partisan research institute in California, challenged the California Department of Education’s claims that students in ELIP were learning English more rapidly than students in bilingual education programs based on scores from the California English Development Test.

However, after more extensive and thorough analyses of the data, their findings revealed that the gains in scores as a result of immersion programs were false and misleading. Moreover, similar evidence exists in Arizona which also did away with their mandated bilingual education program in 2000, further supporting the Legislative Analyst’s Office's findings.

A study commissioned by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in 2000 called the "Texas Successful Schools Study" also demonstrated that Texas students participating in bilingual education programs, like those found in California, outperformed other students who mere merely “submerged” in ELIP. 

The results, based on a study of students with at least five years of bilingual education, paralleled the same results as studies done on the efficiency of California's bilingual education reform. In this study the students' academic performance was compared to that of English Language Learners (ELL) who were not enrolled in those bilingual education programs and/or exited prematurely from the program. 

The study further showed that ELL students who remained in the program until they were designated as “English proficient” met or exceeded the performance of  native English-speaking students in the same grade levels at the same schools. At their core, ELIP programs devalue and exclude, due to a narrow view of language, the unique cultural traditions and lived histories of ELL students.

In contrast, research shows that when teachers value and nurture the cultural and linguistic capital that ELL students bring to school, it contributes to a stronger foundation for academic growth.

Additionally, more often than not, sink-or-swim methods of learning subject children to the postponement of their curriculum learning so they may acquire English language skills. Research shows that if ELLs are given a well-staffed, well-designed, and well-funded bilingual education instruction, before asking them to perform at the same level as their counterparts will allow them to gain proficiency in English.

Certainly, we can see that this method is more conducive to a well-rounded, compassionate, and individually-paced acquisition of the English language and adaptation to the American school system. 

Rather than eliminating bilingual education, legislators should increase bilingual education funding, support scholarships for bilingual teachers in training, and promote the growth of dual-language programs that allow non-English speakers to become literate in two languages.

It is interesting to note that among the 31 high school valedictorians in the Houston Independent School District in 2004, nine started out their school careers in bilingual education programs, four started in ESL programs and four were immigrants.  Similarly, that same year in the Dallas Independent School District, 11 valedictorians and five salutatorians awarded these distinctions also began as ELL students.

Suffice to say, from a public policy perspective, there is still much that could be done when it comes to providing adequate funding for public education in Texas. Funding for bilingual education, ESL, and an increase in financial aid for college students, especially those enrolled in our bilingual education teacher training programs is essential. 

Adequate funding is imperative for the future of our state, our economy, and our children who will become the future leaders of tomorrow. In short, we must invest now in bilingual education or pay the consequences. Such repercussions encompass higher dropout and illiteracy rates, longer unemployment and welfare lines, more crowded prisons due to crime and drugs increase, and further negative societal ills traditionally associated with an uneducated citizenry.

We cannot state strongly enough that education is the primary foundation upon which the health of our society rests. Funding weight in Texas is quite low comparable to other states. Furthermore, it will create success for ELL students and assure that Texas and the U.S. maintain a competitive economic edge and an ability to communicate with the rest of the world. 

We can start now by improving bilingual education in Texas. As former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige stated, "Foreign language instruction should be part of every child's education. A language is more than sounds and syntax: it is a culture, a way of thinking, and a perspective on the world. Each language is a precious resource that must be studied, used and preserved precisely because a language opens the mind to new possibilities. The study of language is the study of life, literature, history and thought. It is nothing less than the study of our world and ourselves."

Let's work together and make this world a better place. We can start now by improving bilingual education in Texas, and not ending it.