Exploring Bilingual Education

Exploring Bilingual Education

by

Claiborne H. Marshall
Ben Lieb
Laura DeMorais
Ilsa Saavedra

One of the principal characteristics of America is its diversity. In all stages of its history, America has experienced an influx of immigrants from all regions of the world. The American educational system has been forced to accommodate this diversity and reflect in its curriculum this complex web of changing cultures and languages. This project focuses on Bilingual Education, just one of the many ways that the American educational system attempts to integrate and accommodate its diverse population.

The term "bilingual education" is potentially misleading. It seems to refer to a single entity, but this is far from the truth. There are many forms of bilingual education, and the implementation of these programs in the educational system varies considerably. What follows is an overview of the most common bilingual education programs currently operating around the United States. These include Transitional bilingual programs, Immersion bilingual programs, Two-way bilingual programs, Restoration bilingual programs, and Developmental bilingual programs.

Transitional Bilingual Education

Transitional bilingual education uses students' native languages in teaching subject areas, and students use progressively more English to transit into the mainstream education curriculum. People who are in favor of transitional bilingual education believe that the first language can be helpful in providing background knowledge, and literacy transfers across languages (Shin, 2000). The main emphasis of transitional bilingual education programs is to enable limited English proficient students to become competent in all areas of English through the development of literacy and academic skills in their native language. Typically, classes are compromised of students who share the same native languages. This approach tries to place students in the mainstream English class as soon as possible, and also, it is most common approach in U.S.A.

Bilingual education has been very controversial throughout America's history. Like other bilingual education programs, transitional bilingual education has many issues or problems. These problems include (1) the unexamined effect of transitional bilingual education, (2) a need for more examination of the concept of "transfer," (3) materials development in the less commonly spoken languages other than Spanish, and (4) development of trained teachers who are proficient in other languages.
With civil rights movements, the Hispanic's complaints became more outspoken as their political power and population in the U.S. increased. At the same time, the growing number of Hispanic acquired increased status within the federal bureaucracy, and they were committed overwhelmingly to their issues and problems. Under this atmosphere, in recognition of the growing population of linguistically and culturally diverse children enrolled in schools, the United States Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act in 1968. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title VII which decreed that a child should be instructed in his/her native tongue for a transitional year while she/he learns English. However, this child is to transfer to an all-English classroom as fast as possible, encouraged the development of programs in bilingual education, and it became the base of transitional bilingual education. By 1986, twenty-six states required bilingual education. However, their goals were to concentrate on teaching English and teach the native language only in transitional programs.

Even though there has been a law regarding transitional bilingual education, every state has its own rules or guidelines on bilingual education. In Illinois, the law establishing Transitional Bilingual Education in 1973 was approved, and transitional bilingual education was implemented beginning July 1, 1976. It requires a transitional bilingual education program if, at the beginning of the school year, there are 20 or more LEP students of the same language group in a building. It provides for native language instruction "to the extent necessary." The student's cultural heritage is included in the curriculum, and the program should provide students with instruction that is appropriate for their level and the opportunity to participate in mainstream classes in such courses as art, music, and physical education.

Transitional bilingual education has met with massive criticism as follows. First, people who are against it say that transitional bilingual programs often interfere with the proper teaching of English. Second, despite massive expenditure on transitional bilingual education, there is no clear evidence that it has been more effective than the old-fashioned way of teaching English through English. Third, it keeps many students too long in the program.

The world has become more dependent than in the past, and the nation's economy is increasingly becoming global. There is increasing need for people who speak various languages to communicate in the world, and in the awake of September 11, the need of knowledge about the world is desperate. By utilizing knowledge and languages of students from various countries, the U.S. can function in an ethically and racially diverse nation and the world. Also, these new groups will renew and revitalize the areas they move into as our earlier immigrants settled and built our neighborhoods of the past. There are many well considered reasons for opposing components of Bilingual Education as it is practiced in the USA at this moment in history, but the voices most often heard are those who have found it a more palatable way to oppose immigrants. It is an odd phenomenon in a country built up of immigrants. Multilingual communities are a resource, not an obstacle, and they are an opportunity.

Immersion Bilingual Programs

Immersion education is defined as using the standard, approved school curriculum taught in a foreign language to students who share the same first language (The University of Minnesota's Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA)). In other words, the foreign language is used for the instruction of all subject matter, and not taught as a separate subject. Teachers use gestures, toys, and pictures to aid student's development of language acquisition as they explore content areas such as math, reading, social studies, science, and other curriculums. The idea to use the immersion model for teaching foreign languages came from Canada's successful use of the program that started in 1965 (Peterson). Currently, 20% of all English speaking children participate in Ottawa and Montreal. These students are completely taught in their second language, French, and begin their English instruction only after they have begun reading in French (Peterson). In fact, as recently as 1999 the total enrollment in French immersion programs in Canada (outside of Quebec) stood at approximately 162,500 students (Canadian Statistics).

In the United States, immersion programs have become very popular in communities with large numbers of foreign immigrants such as Latinos. Schools in these areas are increasingly using classes alternating English and Spanish to help Latino children overcome the language barrier - a form of bilingual education that avoids political controversy (Matthews). In North America, Spanish and French immersion programs are the most common, but there are also programs where the language of instruction is German, Japanese, Chinese, or other less commonly taught languages including native language immersion programs in Hawaii, Alaska, and Canada (CARLA). In fact, the nationwide percentage of elementary schools using immersion programs rose from 2% in 1987 to 8% in 1997 and there are currently 28 schools in the Washington D.C. area alone practicing language immersion education (Matthews).

One of the downsides to this form of bilingual education is trying to find teachers with language skills proficient enough to properly instruct the children in a foreign language. Many school districts have limited resources and need to constantly review and attempt to recruit immersion teachers. The qualified teachers and materials this type of program requires often have a hard time fitting into a school's budget.

Another setback with the immersion style of bilingual education is that children with a delay in learning their first language or with diagnosed auditory disabilities may have limited success in this style of program (CARLA). Furthermore, many critics believe learning in another language will impair a child's ability to read, write, and even speak in his own native language. However, research has consistently shown over the last 30 years that native English-speaking students who participate in foreign language immersion programs are not hindered at all when it comes to their English performance (CARLA). Test scores of children in the lower half of elementary school (kindergarten through first grade) might fall behind test scores of non-immersion students because many immersion programs begin structured reading lessons in English in the second or third grades and test scores do not catch up until later. Nevertheless, because these classroom settings have such "an enriched language experience, [students] often perform above average on the standardized tests which school districts typically give to assess student achievement in English" (CARLA). There is even newer research which suggests that delaying the introduction of the English language arts until fourth or fifth grades might further increase children's test scores in the later grades (CARLA).
Another benefit of bilingual immersion programs is that younger children have the ability to acquire foreign languages much more easily than high school students do because their brains are still using the same tools to process learning the English language. Children of today also need to be bilingual in order to be successful in the growing global economy in the future, and pro-immersion educators believe "the [immersion] approach is one of the only ways for U.S.-born students to achieve a high level of proficiency in a foreign language" (Matthews). Through this method, children are exposed to the culture that accompanies a language, thereby giving them the ability to develop an appreciation of diverse perspectives of the world. One thing learned from the original Canadian experience is that "the learning of a second language by these majority children produced a 'more liberal and enlightened perception of other ethnic groups'" (Peterson). This is especially pertinent to American children due to the increased racial diversity in our country.

Though these programs are voluntary, they have experienced tremendous growth and popularity. The idea of instructing children who are still learning their own language in a completely different language doesn't seem quite as obscure as it did a decade ago. Given proper funding, staffing, and community support, immersion language education should continue to grow into the future.

Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Programs

Two-way bilingual immersion programs (also known as dual language programs) are unique in bilingual education in that they foster literacy and native language ability in two different languages for all students in the curriculum, regardless of mother tongue. The majority of these programs have students whose first languages can be termed either "language majority" or "language minority," where majority refers to the language of the dominant culture. In the United States, two-way immersion programs integrate language minority and language majority students, providing instruction in both English and the native language of the language minority students. The structure of these programs varies, but they all integrate students for most content instruction and provide this instruction in the non-English language for a significant portion of the school day. The overriding goals of two-way bilingual immersion programs are to promote bilingualism and biliteracy, grade-level academic achievement, and positive cross-cultural attitudes and behaviors in all students (CAL).
These "two-way bilingual programs" are growing in popularity in the USA as some English-speaking people recognize the advantage of children learning another language at an early age (Christian).
A unique feature of two-way immersion language instruction is that within each program, there is a balance of language-minority and language-majority students, with each group making up between one-third and two-thirds of the total student population. In this model, all students have the opportunity to be both first language models and second language learners. The main differences among TWI models concern primarily two issues: first, the amount of time spent learning in English and in the minority, and second, the language(s) in which initial literacy instruction is provided (minority language, English, or both). Some programs also separate their students for part of the day, particularly for literacy instruction, with children receiving initial literacy instruction in their native language. In well-implemented programs, both native English speakers and language minority students tend to do as well or better than their peers in other educational programs (TWI FAQ).
The first TWI program in the United States began in 1963. Growth was slow, with fewer than 10 programs documented before 1981. As of 2000 there are 248 TWI programs in 23 states and the District of Columbia. There has also been considerable expansion within existing programs. Many have reported adding new grade levels each year, and 40 programs now extend into middle or high school (Howard and Sugarman).

The majority of TWI programs are in public schools, and the majority of these are in specialized environments such as charter and magnet schools. Nearly all programs operate as "strands" within the schools, and not whole-school programs. Nearly all TWI programs are Spanish/English, but Chinese, French, Korean, and Navajo are also represented in TWI programs across the nation. Only 1% of all students in TWI programs are native speakers of neither of the program's language (Howard and Sugarman).

There are two key de decisions in initiating a TWI program. The first is the choice of the program model, which is a rubric outlining how much time is spent in each language over the course of study. On a national scale the minority-language dominant program is most common. In this type of program primary instruction starts at 80-90% in the minority language for all students, and reaches 50/50% by the fourth grade. The next most common program model is the balanced program ("50/50") where the amount of instructional time is equal in the two languages at all grade levels. A small percentage of schools separate students by language for part of the day, providing differing amounts of instruction in the two languages (Howard and Sugarman).

The second key decision in initiating a TWI program is the language in which initial literacy instruction will be provided. Nationally, 31% of the programs use the minority language for initial literacy instruction for all students, 22% provide initial literacy instruction in both languages to all students, 20% separate the children by native language for initial literacy instruction, and only 1% use English for all students (Howard and Sugarman).

The day to day issues in conducting a TWI program involve implementation. While the goals of two-way bilingual programs generally remain constant, the methods through which these goals are realized depend largely on local conditions, demographics, and community attitudes. A program may organize the two languages by content (e.g., social studies and math are taught in Spanish, while science, arts, and music are taught in English); by time (e.g., instruction in each language on alternate days); or by person (e.g., one teacher uses only Cantonese and another uses only English). Also because students learn content through a language they do not speak natively, techniques that make instruction more comprehensible, such as experiential or hands-on activities, thematic units, peer interaction, and multiple cues that give students additional chances to master concepts are preferred (Programs in Practice:).

A socioeconomic perspective reveals an interesting trend. Using the classification that children who participate in free lunch are classified as being at risk for low academic performance due to poverty, TWI programs appear to serve a sizable at-risk population of both native English speakers and language minority students. Nationally, about one third of programs report that more than half of both native English speakers and language minority students participate in a free or reduced school lunch program (Howard and Sugarman).

A serious concern of TWI programs is the limited availability of qualified bilingual teachers and support staff. However, more than half (54%) of national TWI programs reported that 100% of their teachers are proficient in both program languages. California leads the way with 70% of its programs having fully bilingual teachers. Surprisingly, New York and Texas are below the national average, with only 45% and 40% respectively of their teachers being bilingual (Howard and Sugarman).
In an interview with teachers in a variety of TWI programs conducted by Elizabeth R. Howard and Michael Loeb, teachers offered their opinions on the benefits and challenges of TWI programs. Teachers cited the increased opportunity for fairness in educational perspective, and for language-minority students to see their language and culture validated. They noted an increase in parent involvement, and that students were less likely to "fall through the cracks." Professional benefits that teachers reported were the increased autonomy, challenge, and excitement of creating new curricula and assessment tools, team teaching, and the opportunity to use Spanish (Howard & Loeb).

The teachers reported many challenges. First, because everything is done in two languages, TWI is inherently more labor intensive. Many materials must be developed from scratch and in programs that alternate teachers for Spanish and English instruction, teachers have "twice as many students in half as much time." The teachers also reported multiple challenges in working with parents in TWI programs. Linguistic challenges were cited, such as teaching content information through the second language, distinguishing special needs of the second language acquisition process, easing the frustration of primary grade students who do not understand the language, and promoting Spanish language use among all students. Administrative challenges mentioned were tensions between the two-way program and the general education program within schools and between the two-way programs and the central administration at the district level. Scheduling, working with a partner teacher, and disagreements among staff regarding program features were concerns voiced (Howard & Loeb).

In a study of the Amigos program in Cambridge, MA Spanish-Amigos and English-Amigos were asked to complete a questionnaire about their self-perceptions as developing bilingual speakers. Some of the more significant findings include the following (Lambert & Cazabon, 1994):

Spanish Amigos
" feel equally competent in both languages;
" feel that their writing in Spanish is stronger than their writing in English (particularly in the older grades);
" are confident that they can understand nearly everything presented in Spanish media;
" feel comfortable translating "most things."

English-Amigos
" feel their English is stronger (particularly in the younger grades);
" feel that their reading skills in Spanish are stronger than their listening, speaking, or writing skills;
" can get the main idea of Spanish media but not specific details;
" feel comfortable translating "some things, but not many;
" feel that they are not at all behind in English but likely ahead.

Both Groups
" feel confident about their ability to teach both English and Spanish to their peers;
" favor speaking English over Spanish in any given social situation (especially the older students);
" reveal no ethnic or linguistic bias in their choice of close friends;
" perceive Hispanic Americans as they would other Americans;
" favor bilingual classes over monolingual classes;
" demonstrate confidence in themselves and the Amigos Program (Spanish-Amigos are even more emphatic on this point).

In summary, two-way bilingual immersion programs are an opportunity for students to become bilingual and biliterate at an early age, and foster intercultural awareness and appreciation. Trends in the last ten years indicate that these programs, whose numbers have increased steadily, are an integral and exciting part of the American educational landscape.

Restoration Bilingual Programs

Some people may ask; why do we need to restorer bilingual programs in the United States of America? Why do we need to teach a second language to the Native Americans when they already have English? For me the reasons are very simple. The first reason to restore bilingualism into the Native American Society is because Native Americans have their own language, which is not English. English was not the first language in North America. If one is to argue which language should have been imposed first if should have been Spanish because the Spanish Conquistadors got to America first. But in reality it was the English settlers who occupied much of the north and east of North America. When Europeans landed in America they labeled all American Indians as "savages". Their main purpose was to Europeanize and Christianize Indians that alternated with efforts of genocide and removal. After the American Civil War, President Ulysses S. Grant appointed a commission to create peace in the Frontier. The commission concluded that language differences lead to misunderstandings and that if the children of American Indians were taught English, the differences will disappear.

In their effort to create sameness, the Indian children were taken away from their homes and put into government-funded boarding houses. They were kept away from their families for years and punished in a variety of ways if they used their mother tongue. They believe that with this effort the Indian children will eventually blend in with the white children, eventually married white people, think like white people and eventually their culture would disappear. They were not only set to destroyed the language but also all the concepts that established their culture like the breakdown of extended families, which would have helped the passing down of their language and culture.

It was not until 1971 that President Richard Nixon enunciated the current United States policy of American Indian and Alaska Native self-determination in response to their expressed desires. Overall the policy asserted their rights to control the education of their children and maintain their languages and cultures. The Congress of the United States confirmed these aspirations in the Native American Leagues Act of 1990 by recognizing the unique status of the culture and languages of Native. It also declared that the United States has the responsibility to act together with the Native Americans to ensure the survival of these unique culture and languages (Reyhner 1996).

Despite the passage of the tribal language policies and the 1990 Native American Languages Act, fewer and fewer children are speaking American Indian languages. Because of the lack of intergenerational transmission of language in the home from parents to young children, some tribes have lost their language and cannot be revive.

The schools alone can't revitalized a language; we need the support of the community, the family, and the financial support of the government. According to Joshua Fishman, there are eight stages of language loss and he also proposes interventions to strength the language (see appendix). Also, he points out that many times the government fails to link the crisis of family values with their English-only policy which forces assimilation and the loss of their culture.

Numerous educators believe that one of the most important reasons to keep the Indian languages alive is to give the new generations the foundation necessary to be able to cross from one culture to another. A lot of youngsters that do not posses the ability to understand their language and their culture are trapped in two worlds, one that they do belong to but don't always understand and the other that they feel that they do not belong to but understand the language. It was proven in Hawaii, Spain, Quebec, and New Zealand that the restoration of their native language brings pride and reduces the number of young people who get involved in gangs, abuse alcohol and dropout of school.
In my opinion the only opposition to revitalization of Indigenous languages probably comes from insecure people who want to eliminate anything that could threaten their stability and power. This is also a threat to corporate America who thrive when people believe that more consumption is better and that if we go back to a more balance approach to life on earth, it will mean less consumerism and less profit for their corporation. This is also a threat to people who are afraid to empower others with emotional security. This is also a threat to the board of our school districts who are afraid to realize that our educational model is obsolete and useless. This is also a threat to the administrators of our schools districts who are understaffed and cannot adopt the Guadalupe Decision. This decision states that the primary language of each student must be determined and then the student's proficiency must be tested in that language, then they can be labeled incompetent or placed in a lower track just because of their language. Bilingual education can be accomplished with efforts from all of us, with tolerance and lots patience and funding.

Developmental Bilingual Programs

The many faces of Bilingual Education lend themselves to continuous development of programs aimed at targeting the unique needs of language students. These programs are sometimes referred to as Maintenance Enrichment Programs, and other program definitions exist.

Developmental Bilingual Education, also known as "Late Exit" programs, proposes that students stay in the program throughout elementary school and continue to receive 40% or more of instruction in the first language even when they have been tested as English proficient (Rennie). The programs begin in elementary school and extend through high school. From 1994 to 1995, 38.4% of students participated in state and local bilingual programs versus 29.9% participated in ESL programs (Summary). Key issues in this program are the ways that first language can positively affect acquisition of other languages and that human rights and culture must be respected. Professionals such as James Crawford, Legislatures such as New York, and forums such as English Plus attempt to further developmental language education.

Jim Cummins found in studies that the better students have mastered the first language, the better they will understand English (Leung). It was found that the foundation of the first language would best prepare students for learning academic English, a process lasting from five to seven years. In a 1991 study, 2,000 Spanish students in five states found that "late exit" bilingual education programs were superior to "early exit" transitional programs (Leung). This study shows that the first language base knowledge is central to the assimilation of other languages.

The use of multiple languages has been attributed to many factors: the linguistic variety of this country, social attitudes, and a need to promote a national identity (Global). In addition, movements such as English Plus firmly assert that students have rights to maintain abilities in all spoken languages.

The English Plus movement began as a political move to guarantee freedom from discrimination based on language. Representative Jose Serrano, (D-NY) of the 107th Congress, introduced a nonbinding resolution around 1982(English Plus). Other similar measures have passed at the state level as well. The policy emerged to push more investments in language education for Americans, and also to conserve bilingual education. Proponents of English Plus thought that this type of education could benefit employment, create more cultural awareness, and render psychological benefits to this country. It was further stated that national interest might be best served when all members of society can receive access to opportunities to learn English. Further, according to the Constitution, language assistance must be available to all, including U.S. citizens of other languages who have not had the opportunity to learn English (English Plus).

The issue of bilingual education has been debated since the early 1900's. The United States never had an official language policy. However, in 1780, John Adams proposed one to set standards for English. It was rejected because it threatened individual liberties. There was no English proficiency requirement until 1906, and this was the first major language restriction. Bilingual education receded during the 1920's, and it was not until 1960 that Equal Opportunity in education took force. Hence, bilingual education took a stand to promote language equality (English Plus). According to policy makers and educators, all people could benefit, meaning those who come from other countries as well as Americans. From a governmental standpoint, access to English instruction could promote mobility and equality, increased diversity, and an organization of the cultural realm of the U.S. Although, it is more costly than other types of programs and also more complicated. Policy makers play a role, here, in that they decide how money gets spent on language education. Successful programs have discerning characteristics.

Effective programs should have an academically challenging environment, promoting high expectations. They should have staff development, which assists all teachers and not just language instructors, in providing good instruction. There should be an emphasis on communication between teachers and students. In addition, collaborative learning models seem to be effective in teaching. Finally, involvement of parents is a key factor in the success of these programs (Rennie). Are these programs, ideally, functioning in this manner?

Researching bilingual education may lead one to conclude that there is a maze of conditions that must be met to make them work. The developmental programs focus on the premise that a student's success in a second language is predictive of their performance in the first language. Students master content when taught in a familiar way (Global). Research indicates this is effective; however, what if a student's performance in the first language, thus far, is weak? Then, are these programs beneficial? James Crawford suggests that students do not have to relearn English, and that there is no reason to rush them into "mainstream" classes before they are ready (Ten). This idea seems valid, although it supports sheltering students instead of integrating them academically, culturally, and socially.
Movements such as English Plus emphasize cultural preservation and the "right" to one's own language. These are lofty ideals that have merit, although they seem to ignore students' needs for functionality and placement in the new culture. It would be nice to have acceptance of different cultures and languages by the cultural majority. Looking at societal trends suggests that ethnic groups continue to cluster together, remaining segregated, and semi-monolingual.

Therefore, these kinds of programs hold up high ideals. But it seems questionable as to whether or not students acquire academic success. Although cultural questions should be factored in, they should be balanced with English instruction and academics. In conclusion to the multi-faceted issues of bilingual education, one particular program or movement does not show itself to be superior to others. It is the responsibility of school governments and communities to carefully manage the education of their students. A program must cater to the needs of the students found in a particular school, and they must not be "standardized" into "those kind of students".

Conclusion

Special interests, politics, businesses, school districts, parents, communities and even students all factor into the decisions made on chosing bilingual education programs in schools today. Every one of these entities seems to have its own voice and opinion on this sometimes-controversial subject. The problem comes when we relegate those who need these programs the most, our children. Children of all ages need bilingual programs to be able to either maintain their own cultures, identities, heritages and languages or explore new ones in this growing global society. For those students who speak no english, teachers will always be faced with the question of how to best assimilate them into the regular english-speaking American classroom. The idea of eradicating bilingual programs altogether and adopting "English-only" policies with the mission to erase peoples' memories of who they are would be a great loss to American culture. A Northern Cheyenne elder speaks on the subject when he states that the " Cheyenne language is us; it is who we are: we talk it, we live it. We are it and it is us" (Dr. Littlebear 1994). The United Sates was a nation built on diversity, born from a desire for independence and originality. Let us continue to promote diversity by recognizing peoples' differences and helping them to keep their dignity and spirit alive while continuing to encourage the growth of present and future forms of language programs.

REFERENCES

Cazabon, M., Lambert, W., & Hall, G. (1992)."Two-Way Bilingual Education: A Progress Report on the Amigos Program." Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.

Center for Applied Linguistics, (2001)
http://www.cal.org/twi/ jar/TIL-2.html

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota. "Language Immersion Education". http://carla.acad.umn.edu/immersion.htmlSummary Report of Survey of States LEP Students and Available Education Programs and Services, 1994-1995. www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/seareports/94-95/programs.htm

Christian, D (1994). "Two-way bilingual education: Students learning through two languages." Washington DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.

Crawford, James. ERIC, Ten Fallacies of Bilingual Education, www.cal.org/Crawford01.html.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JW Crawford/EPIC.htm
English Plus Movement.

Harton ,Stacye(1997) The Echota Cherokee Language: Current Use and Opinions About Revival. http://Jan.ucc.hau.edu/~jar/til_19.html

Howard, Elizabeth R. & Sugarman, Julie (2001). Way Immersion Programs: Features and Statistics. Center for Applied Linguistics
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0101twi.html

Howard, Elizabeth R. & Loeb, Michael I. (1998). "In Their Own Words:
Two-Way Immersion Teachers Talk About Their Professional Experiences"
Center for Applied Linguistics
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/intheirownwords.html

Leung, Rebecca. Studies in Bilingual Education: Non English speaking Children Develop Better English Skills, abc news go.com/sections/us/Daily News/bilingualed_research.html.

Mathews, Jay. The Washington Post Online, "Decade of Growth for Language Immersion; Fairfax Program Marks Achievements and Acceptance". November 1 1999. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/Wplate/1999-11/01/1301-110199-idx.html

Mora, J. K. (1999, July). A road map to bilingual education controversy. Retrieved June 16, 2002, from : http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/BERoadmap.htm

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (2000). Bilingual education. Retrieved June 16, 2002, from : http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/links/biesl/?clkd=iwm#CENTERS

Peterson, Bob. Educational Issue Series, "The Language of Education; The Bilingual Education Controversy". July 1997. http://www.weac.org/resource/July97/languag.htm

Rennie, Jeanne. ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics, ESL and Bilingual Program Models, www. cal.org/ericcll/digest/rennie01.html.

Rethinking Schools.(1998, Spring). History of Bilingual Education. Retrieved June 16, 2002, from : http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archives/12_03/langhst.htm.

Reyhner, Jon (1996) Rationale and Needs for Stabilizing Indiginous Languages. http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/stabilize/I-needs/rational.htm

Reyhner, Jon (1999) Some Basics Of Indigenous Language Revitalization
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/TIL-Intro.html

Risingsun Ted and Leman Wayne (1989) Let's Talk Cheyenne audio cassette. Statistics Canada, "Enrolment in second language immersion programs", http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Education/educ23a.htmOhio University ESL (2001). Voices Opposed to Bilingual Education. Retrieved June 16, 2002, from : http://www.ohiou.edu/esl/project/bilingual/index.html#Social

St. Clair, Robert N. (1997) The Invisible Doors Between Cultures.http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/TIL_23.html

Tucker, G. Richard. A Global Perspective on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, August 1999.

Trujillo V. Octaviana (1997) A Tribal Approach to Language and Literacy Developmnet in a Trilingual Setting.http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~Shin, F. H. (2000, April) Parent attitude toward the principles of bilingual education and their children's participation in bilingual program. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 21, 93-103.

Two-Way Bilingual Education Programs in Practice: A National and Local Perspective
National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning (1994). http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/ed379915.html

Two-Way Immersion Frequently Asked questions (TWI FAQ). (2001) http://www.cal.org/twi/FAQ.htm.