The Bali study

Rossell (2002) rejects the Parrish et. al. results because more children were tested in 2001 than in 1998. She cites with approval, however, Bali (2001), who provides data from one district, Pasadena, and controlled for different rates of testing of children. Bali compared the progress of children who had been in bilingual education but who, because of Proposition 227, were abruptly placed in all-English classes, with those who had been in all-English classes all along. Bali reported that students who had been in bilingual education gained 4.15 points in reading the year after leaving bilingual education, compared to gains of 1.8 points for those who had been in English previously, with no difference in math. Bali and Rossell interpret this finding as showing that Prop. 227 did no harm and in fact did some good. But one could easily argue that the superior gains of those formerly in bilingual education were due to bilingual education: In bilingual education, students learned subject matter knowledge through their first language, which made the English they subsequently heard more comprehensible, and developed literacy in their first language, which facilitated subsequent literacy development in the second language.²

There is thus no evidence that dropping bilingual education resulted in significantly more "English for the children." California, it seems, dismantled a program that allowed for equivalent English language development with less time actually devoted to English, a stunning confirmation of the efficacy of providing first language instruction. California gave up the advantages of bilingualism and received nothing in return.

Why bilingual education helps English language development

Briefly, quality bilingual programs introduce English right away and teach subject matter in English as soon as it can be made comprehensible, but they also develop literacy in the first language and teach subject matter in the first language in early stages.

4