Have Learned from Field Research " Har vard Education Review 47 ( 1977): 518- 543.

Becker, W C. and Gersten, R "A Follow Up of Follow Through: The Later Effects of the Direct Instruction Model" American Educational Research Journal 1 9 (1982): 75-93.

Becker. W C , Englemann, S; Carnine, D. W, and Rhine, W R The Direct Instruc tion Model." In Encouraging Change in America's Schools: A Decade of Experimen tation. Edited by W R Rhine New York: Academic Press, 1981

BrophyJ , and Good. T "Teacher Behav ior and Academic Achievement" In Third Handbook of Research on Teaching Edit ed by M Wittrock. New York: Macmillan, 1984

Danoff, M N Evaluation of the Impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English Bilingual Education Program: Oveniew of Study and Findings Palo Alto: American Insti tutes for Research, 1978

Gersten, R. "The Effects of a Structured Immersion Approach on Language-Minor

iry Asian Students," Educational Evalua tion and rolicy Analysis ( in press)

Gersten, R.; Carnine, D, and Keating, T "The Lasting Impact of Direct Instruction Follow Through Program: Preliminary Findings of a Longitudinal Study of 1.500 Students." Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, New Or leans, La., 1984

Gersten, R; Taylor. R; Woodward. J; and White, W. A. T. "Structured English Immer sion for Hispanic Students in the II.S: Findings from the 14-Year Evaluation of the Llvalde, Texas, Program " Paper pre sented at the annual meeting of the Ameri can Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La , April 1984

House, E; Glass, G.; McLean, L; and Walker, D "No Simple Answer Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation," Harvard Education Retieu' 42, 2 ( 1978): 128-160

Kennedy, M "Findings from the Follow Through Planned Variation Study Educa tional Researcher 7 (1978): 3-li

Lambert. N E., and Tucker, G R Bilin gual Education of Children: The St Lam

bert Experience Rawley. Mass: Newbury House. 19^2

Rosenshine. B "Teaching Functions in Instructional Programs ' Elementary School Journal 83 11983): 352-355

Stalling*. J Implementation and Child Effects of Teaching Practices in Follow Through Classrooms" Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Detvlopment. 1975/40 Cm Serial No Ib3)

Stebbins. L B.; St Pierre. R G.: Proper, E C.; Anderson, R. B . and Cerva, T R Edu cation as Experimentation A Planned Variation Model. Vol 4A-D An Evalua tion ofFollou' Through Cambridge. Mass : Abt, 197"

Tikunoff. W J Significant Bilingual In struction Features Descriptit<e Study San Francisco: Far West Labs. 1983

Education Weekh. Mav 2 . 1 984

Russell Gersten is Assistant Professor and John Woodward is Research Associate, both with the College of Education. I'nis^er- sily of Oregon. Eugene. Oregon 9^403-1215

Understanding Bilingual Education or The Sheep in Wolfs ClothingRAMON L. SANTIAGO

The education of language-minority students must be approached with caution and objectivity; there is more than one answer to this issue.

I have several reasons for wanting to reply to Gersten and Wood ward's article, not the least of

which is that they quoted me directly and promised in the same breath to show the world that my remarks were totally without foundation

A more unselfish reason for my interest, however, concerns the arti cle's "potential to divide and disrupt a germinating field" bilingual educa tion (Willig, 1981-82, p. 7). It is one thing to attempt to prove and cele brate the fact that a program has been

effective in fulfilling the educational needs of linguistic minority children; it is quite another to suggest, by quot ing from the AIR report (Danoff. 1978) and Baker and de Ranter (1984). that this program has succeeded for the I very same reasons that bilingual edu cation has failed. In addition, I am disturbed by Gersten and Woodward s apparent lack of understanding of the purpose of bilingual education and the nature of bilingual education pro grams (Willig. p 1) If we in the field of bilingual education have ncx suc-

SEPTEMBER 1985

"I am disturbed by Gersten and Woodward's lack of understanding of the purpose of bilingual education and the nature of bilingual education programs."

ceeded in making our goals and objec tives clear, then we must try again and again.

On one level, their article makes fine inspirational reading. If what Ger sten and Woodward have reported is true, then we should be gratified that an instructional program is having re markable success. Problems arise, however, when the authors propose to show that two examples (even suc cessful ones) of what they call "struc tured immersion are enough to build a case not for structured immersion but against bilingual education

Proceeding Cautiously and ProfessionallyPerhaps we should begin with the least serious charge, as it is the easiest to refute. I was fairly sure of my facts when I said that the immersion meth od has only been tried with middle- class children in Canada, but in the interest of accuracy I did some further checking and came across the follow ing statement by Dolson (1984, p. 3):

\1trjtarei Matoam

immersion programs have not been implemented with language minority stu dents Essentially, the participants in Cana dian immersion programs have been students who linguistically, socially, and economically enjoy majority group status

Dolson adds that "virtually no sys tematic information is available con cerning the use of immersion education for language minority stu dents" (p 5)

Gersten and Woodward also claim that "despite the documented success of the immersion model in Canada, the majority of bilingual educators are adamantly opposed to its use in the U.S. It would have been much easier to agree with them if they had said that we are violently opposed to immer sion's m isuse As Dolson (1984) indi cates, "educators in the United States, impressed by the favorable reports from Canada, have expressed interest in immersion education" (p 1), but they want to be sure of the implications.

In fact, the Office of Bilingual Educa tion of California commissioned a

80 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

publication to "address immersion education as it has been or is project ed to be implemented in Canada and in the United States, both in its classi cal as well as divergent forms.... The focus of the papers will be on the applicability of immersion programs for language minority students" (Stud ies in Immersion, 1 984, p. 2) Thus, responsible bilingual educators, in cluding those who pioneered immer sion programs in Canada, far from discouraging anyone from exploring the applicability of immersion to US. contexts, welcome experimentation but urge us to proceed cautiously and professionally. Genesee (1984, p 53) best exemplifies this concern:Successful implementation of an immer sion program for a particular group of children requires more than knowing when to teach students using a second language More important, it involves knowing which sociocultura) conditions and educational approaches will facilitate their learning To recreate these condi tions and implement these approaches to facilitate academic and language learning among minority language children will require more than changing the names of the languages involved Indeed, this task may require changing the basic structure of immersion education as it is known to apply to majority language children.

Perhaps my greatest concern is the authors' indiscriminate use of the term immersion (and structured immer sion, whatever that might be), particu larly in referring to the Canadian model. Their proclamation that "struc tured immersion appears to be a via ble alternative to transitional bilingual education" is like saying that pancakes are a viable alternative to breakfast. As Genesee (1984) points out, "immer sion education is a type of bilingual education in which a second language (or second languages) is used along with the students' first language [ em phasis added] for curriculum instruc tion during some pan of the students' elementary and/or secondary school ing" (p. 32). Furthermore, the claim made by presumed advocates of im mersion that compensatory education models are best suited to meet the needs of low-income, linguistic minor ity students is ample proof of their unfamiliariry with immersion models. Genesee tells us that the major goals of immersion programs have always been:

1 To provide participating students

with functional competence in the second language

2. To promote and maintain normal lev els of first language development (not mentioned once by Gersten and Wood ward).

3. To ensure achievement in academic subjects commensurate with the students' academic ability and grade level

4. To instill in students an understand ing of and appreciation for the target lan guage group and their language and culture without detracting in any way from the students' identity with and appreciation for the home language and culture (p 32)

Obviously some of these goals are incompatible with those of compensa tory education models.

Research and RealityThe authors' uncritical acceptance of Baker and de Kanter's contention that "transitional bilingual education has had minimal success, that there is no empirical evidence to support its use" (p. 2) and that immersion is superior to bilingual education demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of bilingual education programs in the United States. They do not seem to acknowledge that "in real life, bilingual education programs come in many shapes and forms" (Wil- lig, 1981-82, p. 6), and that "depend ing on where one draws the line to differentiate program types, U.S. im mersion programs may very well fall within the realm of bilingual educa tion" (p. 7). It is thus of little value to imply that there is a clear-cut distinc tion between bilingual education and the type of immersion program that has been conducted in the U.S. (as Gersten and Woodward can attest since by their own description the Uvalde program has been liberally sprinkled with doses of bilingual "en hancement"). Approaching the prob lems from an ethnographic perspective, Burns (1981-82) makes essentially the same point when he says that the success or failure of bilin gual education programs "cannot be measured in absolute terms because the programs exist in many social fields each with its own configuration of attitudes and values associated widi bilingualism as an ideology or as a cultural strategy" (p. 48).

"Problems arise when the authors propose to show that two examples ... of 'structured immersion' are enough to build a case not/or structured immersion but against bilingual education."

SEPTEMBER 1985 81

A second problem associated with Baker and de Kanter's judgment of bilingual programs is their conclusion that transitional bilingual education has been ineffective primarily because the children in these programs do no better (but no worse, incidentally) in English language skills and in math achievement than children in tradi tional programs (Willig, pp. 3 4). The absence of differences between the two groups in these two measures is considered a failure by these research ers, who attach no value to the chil dren's performance in other subject matter areas such as science, social studies, native language arts, and na tive language reading, as well as self- concept and dropout rates (Willig, p. 4). Such a narrow focus may be appro priate in the necessarily contrived world of research but is of little value in the real world of children.

The Proper PerspectiveUltimately, we should be thankful for articles like this because they give us the opportunity to put matters in per spective. I have no desire to quarrel with the specific evaluation results em anating from the two programs Ger- sten and Woodward describe, even if I

"Ultimately, we should be thankful for articles like this because they give us the opportunity to put matters in perspective."

do have reservations about the meth odology (for example, the absence of comparison groups in the Uvalde pro gram, which by Baker and de Kanter's standards would invalidate the results) and the interpretation of the results (comparing the acquisition of reading proficiency between early elementary and late elementary students). Such articles make us realize that there is still a significant segment of the Ameri can public who does not fully under stand the nature and purpose of bilingual education; who judges pro grammatic efforts on behalf of linguis tic and cultural minority populations from a dangerously narrow perspective.

I appreciate and applaud the au thors' attitude at the end of the article, where they identify their report as an attempt to "really understand what constitutes effective instruction for lan guage minority students" and recog nize that the implementation of instructional models, whatever the type, is easier said than done. For this reason, we should recognize the ex cellent work coming out of the Califor nia Office of Bilingual Education, which in the past few years has devel oped a series of extremely useful doc uments (Studies on Immersion Education, 1 984; Schooling and Lan guage Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework, 1 981) on the education of language-minority populations. The quality, objectivity, and professional ism of these publications should be emulated, for they recognize without bias that there is more than one an swer to the same problem:

For students who are native speakers of English, immersion education has been shown to be an enrichment program which will improve students' academic achievement, language development, and psycho-social adjustment in addition to Fostering high levels of bilingual skills Conversely, programs given in the mother tongue of language minority students have been shown to achieve similar outcomes for that group of students (Dolson, p. 6)

Planning and Implementing Educational ProgramsI would urge everyone concerned with the effective and humane educa tion of linguistic minority students to seriously consider and utilize the sev-

'There is still a significant segment of the American public that do not fully understand the nature and purpose of bilingual education; who judge programmatic efforts on behalf of linguistic and cultural minority populations from a dangerously narrow perspective."

en principles proposed by Dolson (1984, p. 4) for planning and imple menting educational (not merely lan guage) programs for all children.

1. Under optimal schooling condi tions, on the average, students realize the full academic benefits of their bi- lingualism only after four to seven years of appropriate instructional treatment.

2. Bilingually schooled students, at times, even under the very best condi tions, may initially lag behind their monolingually schooled counterparts in some literacy-based skills After three or four years, they begin to catch up; and by six or seven years, they equal and commonly surpass their monolingually schooled counterparts.

3. When the instructional treatment is adequately designed and appropri ately matched to local sociolinguistic realities, native speakers of a majority language may be schooled in a second language for an average of approxi mately 50 to 75 percent of the time from K-12 with no detrimental effects on their academic achievement and native language development. Con versely, it may also be predicted that many language minority students in

82 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

the United States could be schooled in their native language for an average of 50 to 75 percent of the time from K-12 as an appropriate means to promote their normal academic achievement, high levels of English language profi ciency, adequate psychosocial adjust ment, and satisfactory native language development.

4. In formal schooling contexts, ad ditive forms of bilingualism are best achieved through the separate use of two languages. That is, as students are instructed in both their first and sec ond languages, steps are taken so that students are exposed to each language at different times and for distinct purposes.

5 To avoid cognitive confusion and greatly increase learning efficiency, program staff should provide initial literacy instruction in bilingual set tings in a sequential manner. That is, basic literacy skills should be devel oped through one language before reading instruction is introduced in the other language.

6. Underachievers and students with learning disabilities seem to experience no detrimental effects from bilingual instruction. When such children receive bilingual schooling, their academic achievement and na tive language development are similar to those of their counterparts in monolingual programs.

7. Formal second language instruc tion, even when provided under opti mal conditions, appears to be insufficient to develop all of the lan guage skills needed by second lan guage acquirers. Some amount of exposure through natural social inter action is also required. D

ReferencesBaker, K., and de Kanter, A. "Recent

Federal Policy Changes and Research in the United States' U.S. Department of Education draft, 1984

Burns, A. "Politics, Pedagogy, and Cul ture in Bilingual Classrooms: A Case Study." National Association for Bilingual Education Journal 6 , 2-3 (1981-82): 35- 52.

Danoff. M. Evaluation of the Impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English Bilingual Education Program: Overview of Study and Findings Palo Alto: American Insti tutes for Research, 1978.

Dolson, D Studies on Immersion Edu cation: Introduction Sacramento: Califor nia State Department of Education, 1984

Genesee, F. "Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Immersion Education." In Studies in Immersion Sacramento: Califor nia State Department of Education, 1984.

Met, M. Immersion and the Language Minority Student. Milwaukee: Midwest Na tional Origin Desegregation Assistance Center, 1984.

Schooling and Language Minority Stu dents. A Theoretical Framework. Sacra mento: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. California State Depart ment of Education, 1981.

Willig, A. "The Effectiveness of Bilingual Education: Review of a Report." National Association for Bilingual Education Jour nal 6 , 2-3 (1981-82): 1-20.

Ram6n L. Santiago is Director, George town University Bilingual Education Ser vice Center, 2139 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C 20007

Response to SantiagoRUSSELL GERSTEN AND JOHN WOODWARD

Empirical data support the use of structured immersion with Hispanic and Asian students in the U.S.; can Santiago claim the same for transitional bilingual education?

We disagree with Santiago on several points. First, there were four studies other than

the St. Lambert study, all of which involved children from working-class families. The results of structured im mersion with these students were comparable to those found with the middle-class children in the St. Lam- ben study Second, our range of mea sures was not as narrow as Santiago suggests; our achievement battery in cluded science and language as well as reading and math. Further, we provid ed data showing improved high school attendance, fewer retentions,

and a reduced dropout rate Our stud ies included a measure of student adjustment and achievement after transition into a regular English lan guage classroom had been made, and one study (Becker and Gersten, 1982) followed the students for seven full years the criteria suggested by Santi ago as a sign of true effectiveness.

The results we presented seem to demonstrate that structured English immersion, when sensibly implement ed, is, a worst, not harmful to low- income Hispanic or Asian students. We urge researchers and educators to fo cus more attention on what is happen-

SEPTEMBER 1985 83

Copyright © 1985 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.