Interview with James Crawford

Q:   Mr. Crawford, would you describe your involvement in the current debate on bilingual education?
A:   My involvement with bilingual education began about 20 years ago as a journalist for Education Week. Here was a controversial issue, I thought, that might be fun to write about for a while. But I soon discovered that it was more than a hot political story. It was also a fascinating science story, a cultural change story, a civil rights story, and of course, an education story. Most important for me at the time, it was an untold story of social significance – something that enterprising journalists are always on the lookout for. Here was an innovative and effective way of teaching children that was widely misunderstood. So I decided to quit my newspaper job and begin a freelance writing career, specializing in bilingual education and the politics of language. Then, in 2004, I accepted a job as executive director of the National Association for Bilingual Education, the major professional organization for teachers in the field.

Q:   When it comes to learning English, which do you believe to be more effective and expedient: bilingual schools, where non-native speakers receive some instruction in their first language, or English-only schools, in which all subjects are taught in English?
A:   A large body of research shows – and there’s no question about this in my mind – that well designed bilingual education programs are far more efficient in teaching English than all-English approaches. That said, it’s also important to note that in education there is no one-size-fits-all. Children differ widely in their backgrounds, needs, abilities, and learning styles. English language learners who come from relatively affluent homes with well educated parents, especially immigrants who have developed strong literacy skills in their home countries, can and do succeed without bilingual education. On the other hand, students from poor backgrounds with limited exposure to English at home or in their communities tend to fail in massive numbers when placed in English-only classrooms. We know we can do better. Over the past generation, scientific studies have documented the enormous difference that bilingual education can make for these kids.

Q:   Some people make the case that bilingual education is important for teaching individual academic subjects.  If a Spanish-speaking student, for example, can take chemistry in Spanish, she may learn more than if she took the course in English.  What is your position on this aspect of the debate?
A:   Naturally, it’s hard to learn anything – not to mention a complex subject like chemistry -- in a language you don’t understand. Bilingual instruction helps students keep up academically while they are learning English. In an English-only chemistry class, by contrast, they would just be wasting their time, sitting through lessons that were mostly meaningless. So, for students learning English, bilingual education is clearly a more efficient way to learn academic subjects. But that’s not all. Acquiring knowledge through their native language also helps them in acquiring English. That’s because it provides context – background in subject matter – that makes the second language more comprehensible. For example, if you have already learned about the concepts of “atom” and “molecule” in Spanish, a chemistry lesson in English will make a lot more sense. And the more English “input” makes sense, the more English a student acquires.

Q:   Some say that a percentage of students in bilingual schools do not acquire a proficiency in English which is needed to compete in the job market. Proponents of bilingual education, however, claim that in an increasingly global workforce, bilingual students will have the advantage. When it comes to preparing English language learners for future careers, which are more beneficial: bilingual or English-only schools?
A:   What students need to succeed professionally is an excellent all-round education, including high levels of English skills. That’s what well designed and well implemented bilingual programs provide. In addition, they offer students a chance to become fully bilingual and biliterate, preparing them for the growing number of jobs that demand these skills in an era of globalization. It’s a shame that, out of fear or ignorance, some Americans would discourage children from developing this potential. In comparison to many other nations, where fluency in more than one language is the rule rather than the exception, the United States remains largely an underdeveloped country when it comes to language skills. That’s not in our nation’s best interests.

Q:   Some people consider that laws regulating bilingual education place an excessive burden on small schools with only a few non-native speakers. In some cases, a superintendent may be forced to cut the job of a full-time librarian or gifted-and-talented teacher in order to pay the salary of an instructor qualified to teach individual subjects in a foreign language.  What is your perspective on the expense of bilingual education?
A:   There is no legal mandate for bilingual education at the federal level, and most state requirements in this area are very flexible. In practice, bilingual education is rarely offered at small schools with only a few English language learners. Elsewhere it is often unavailable because of a shortage of qualified bilingual teachers, especially in languages other than Spanish. But this is not a major cost issue. The extra expense of providing bilingual education is fairly modest. In fact, studies have shown it is no greater than the cost of providing qualified teachers who use all-English approaches with these students. I have never heard of other school staff being fired in order to hire bilingual personnel.

Q:   Considering that different school districts have different needs, some people argue against sweeping educational legislation by the state and federal government. How much flexibility do you think individual districts should have in decisions about bilingual education?
A:   I think school districts should have plenty of flexibility in making pedagogical decisions, provided that they give English language learners an equal opportunity to succeed. That’s the law. Schools need to offer well designed programs, bilingual or otherwise, that are supported by qualified staff and adequate resources. Unfortunately, this kind of flexibility has been outlawed in some states through passage of “English Only” initiatives. Such laws are based on political bias rather than sound educational research. They make it much harder for educators to do a good job for English language learners.  

Q:   With standardized tests, the national educational program No Child Left Behind has created a means of evaluating schools across the country. Some people find fault with this program because schools serving large populations of non-native speakers are more likely to fail these tests, a significant component of which is reading and using English. Once it has been labeled a failing school, parents can transfer their children to other schools, thus diverting funds from the school serving bilingual students. How do you respond to this problem?
A:  There are numerous problems with this law, and I’m optimistic that Congress will address them soon. Perhaps the most important problem for English language learners is that the standardized tests used to assess their achievement are almost always administered in English. Everyone, including the test developers, agrees that such tests are neither valid nor reliable in measuring what English learners actually know. Nevertheless, they are being used for “high stakes” purposes, in which many schools are being labeled as failures – and even “reconstituted,” shut down – because of results on these invalid tests. That’s not fair. The more English learners a school has, the more likely it is to face sanctions under the No Child Left Behind Law. In effect, educators are being “held accountable” not for the quality of education they provide but for the demographic profile of their students. Over time, the effect will be to penalize all English-learner programs, whether good, bad, or indifferent. Some people say the real intent of this law was to discredit the public schools and bring in private corporations to run them. I suspect there’s a lot of truth to that.

Q:   President Theodore Roosevelt once commented on this topic, saying, “We have room for one language here, and that is the English Language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house.”  In the debate on bilingual education in public schools, do policy makers need to make a decision between creating national unity or promoting cultural diversity?
A:   No American politician could get away with such an intolerant statement today. It’s like saying “we only have room” for one race or religion or political point of view. As a nation we have learned that the most divisive actions are those that use the power of government to harass minorities or attempt to coerce conformity. Notwithstanding the rhetoric of “English Only” proponents, restricting people’s rights on the basis of language is no way to create national unity. Quite the contrary. The more we accept diversity – in language and a multitude of other traits – as a natural part of the human condition, the more Americans can unite around the egalitarian ideals on which our country was founded.

Q:   Should languages and cultures be maintained in schools or in homes, cultural centers and religious institutions?
A:   Opinions about these questions vary, both within and between ethnic minorities. Some parents prefer to teach their languages and cultures in private contexts. Others, including a growing number of English-background Americans, want opportunities for their children to become bilingual in public schools. Americans should be free to make such choices on their own, at the local level, without having to contend with restrictive legislation.

Q:   Do bilingual schools pose a threat to  national unity?
A:   That’s an absurd suggestion. It’s a bit like asking whether religious schools are undermining the country – the question that “nativist,” anti-immigrant forces emphasized throughout the 19th century.

Q:   Don Soifer of the Lexington Institute has made the counter argument that bilingual education is a form of segregation, since it divides students by their ethnic background.  How do you respond to this perspective?
A:   It’s interesting to see political conservatives, who have been missing from every civil-rights battle over the past half century, suddenly getting concerned about school segregation when it can be raised as an argument against native-language instruction. In fact, bilingual education as we know it today was a product of the civil-rights movement. Ever since the 1960s, bilingual programs have made an effort to mix English learners and English speakers whenever possible – for example, in classes that are not language-dependent, such as art, music, and physical education. It’s also worth noting that many bilingual programs operate in urban schools that are highly segregated by race and ethnicity, regardless of the languages used for instruction. Tackling that problem would make a lot of sense.

Q:   How prominently does the question of bilingual education rank in relation to other current issues in the public schools, ranging from problems of drugs and violence, gender inequalities in both classes and sports programs, the funding of special education programs, to in-class prayer and saying the Pledge of Allegiance?
A:   As the country grows more diverse, I believe that bilingualism is becoming more accepted and less threatening, especially to younger generations of Americans. As a result, English Only fervor has been declining. This, in turn, has weakened some of the emotional, ideological objections to bilingual education. Meanwhile, with the growing popularity of “two-way” bilingual education, which extends the program’s benefits to English-speaking children, I believe that public attitudes are becoming more favorable. A generation from now, this debate will probably seem like a quaint anachronism to a country that is far more diverse and more tolerant of immigrants than it is today.