WRIGHT_2013

Prévia do material em texto

The Handbook of 
Bilingualism and 
Multilingualism
Second Edition
Edited by
Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie
A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication
This second edition first published 2013
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing, Ltd
Edition History: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd (1e, 2004)
Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing 
program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form 
Wiley-Blackwell.
Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Offices
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to 
apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.
wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie to be identified as the authors of the editorial 
material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents 
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or 
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or 
otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the 
prior permission of the publisher.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print 
may not be available in electronic books.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All 
brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or 
registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product 
or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and 
authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding 
that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other 
expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism / edited by Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie. 
– Second edition.
 pages cm
 Extensive revision of: The handbook of bilingualism. 2004.
 Includes bibliographical references and index.
 ISBN 978-1-4443-3490-6
 1. Bilingualism. 2. Multilingualism. I. Bhatia, Tej K. II. Ritchie, William C. III. Handbook of 
bilingualism.
 P115.H365 2012
 404'.2–dc23
 2012010708
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Jacket image: © Artelia / Dreamstime.com
Jacket design by Workhaus.
Set in 10/12 pt Palatino by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited
1 2013
http://www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell
http://www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell
The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism, Second Edition. 
Edited by Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
24 Bilingual Education
WAYNE E. WRIGHT
The simplest definition of bilingual education is the use of two or more languages 
in classroom instruction (González 2008) – typically the native language of the 
student and the dominant societal language. However, a finer distinction must 
be made between native language instruction and native language support. In 
bilingual education classrooms, students receive some content-area instruction 
through the medium of their native language, while other content areas are 
taught through the dominant societal language (García 2009). In contrast, native 
(or primary) language support is used in regular mainstream or sheltered immer-
sion classrooms where the dominant societal language is used as the medium of 
all content-area instruction, but occasional use is made of the native language to 
help students who lack proficiency in the dominant language cope with and better 
understand instruction (Wright 2008). While native/primary language support 
can be an effective strategy for valuing and using students’ home languages and 
as a resource to help students learn the dominant language and academic content, 
such support is minimal, temporary and insufficient to help students develop 
their bilingualism and native language literacy skills.
The focus in this chapter is on bilingual education programs for language 
minority students that deliberately provide language and content area instruction 
in both the native language and the dominant societal language.1 A basic premise 
of bilingual education is that students learn best in the language they understand 
the most. While program models vary (see below), in most programs students are 
initially provided with literacy and some content-area instruction in their home 
language, while also receiving explicit instruction to learn the dominant language 
(e.g., English as a second language), along with some content areas taught through 
the dominant language in a specially designed manner that makes instruction 
comprehensible and is supportive of their development in the dominant language 
(e.g., sheltered English content-area instruction). As students progress through 
the program and attain higher levels of proficiency in the dominant language, the 
Bilingual Education 599
amount of native-language instruction decreases while the amount of dominant-
language instruction increases. García (2009) reminds us, however, that bilingual 
education goes beyond merely using two languages in the classroom:
More than anything else, bilingual education is a way of providing meaningful and 
equitable education, as well as an education that builds tolerance towards other lin-
guistic and cultural groups. In so doing, bilingual education programs provide a 
general education, teach in two or more languages, develop multiple understandings 
about languages and cultures, and foster appreciation for human diversity (p. 6).
In the sections that follow, I will first give a brief history of bilingual education, 
followed by an overview of bilingual education research, focusing mainly on 
research on the effectiveness of bilingual education for the language and aca-
demic development of minority children. Next I will discuss methodological and 
theoretical issues, focusing primarily on various program models of bilingual 
education. A discussion of several problem areas follows. I conclude with a brief 
discussion of directions for future work.
Brief History of Bilingual Education
While bilingual education is often depicted – particularly by its opponents – as 
an experiment which began in North America in the 1960s, in reality, bilingual 
education may be as old as education itself (Lewis 1978). The discovery in the 
mid-1970s of the 16,000 bilingual Ebla tablets in Syria written in Eblaite (using the 
cuneiform script) and in Sumerian (Roger and Moorey 1991) ‘indicated that bilin-
gual schooling is at least 4,000 to 5,000 years old’ (García 2009: 13). Ebla was a 
major trade center between culturally and linguistically diverse groups of people. 
As Baker (2008) observed, ‘Bilingualism and bilingual education, multilingualism 
and multilingual education became a necessity, or at least desirable, whenever 
language groups came into contact,’ and thus bilingual education ‘has a history 
that reveals its cultural, economic, social, and political value in bridging different 
language groups and societies’ (p. 872). Baker speculates that bilingual education 
was common among the ancient Greeks and Romans and in primitive societies. 
He adds that bilingual education can certainly be traced back to the time of Christ 
and earlier:
The biblical figures of Jesus’ time would haveNJ: 
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baker, Colin (2006). Foundations of Bilingual 
Education and Bilingualism, 4th edn. Clevedon: 
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, Colin (2008). U.S. bilingual education 
viewed from abroad. In Josué M. González 
(ed.), Encyclopedia of Bilingual Education, Vol. 2. 
871–8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baker, Colin and Jones, Sylvia P. (1999). 
Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual 
Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, Keith and de Kanter, Adriana (1981). 
Summary Report of a Review of the Literature on the 
Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Washington, 
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Beardsmore, Hugo B. (ed.) (1993). European 
Models of Bilingual Education. Clevedon: 
Multilingual Matters.
620 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
Beardsmore, Hugo B. (2009). Language 
promotion by European supranational 
institutions. In Ofelia García (ed.), Bilingual 
Education in the 21st Century: A Global 
Perspective. 197–217. Malden, MA: 
Wiley-Blackwell.
Bekerman, Zvi and Shhadi, Nader (2003). 
Palestinian–Jewish bilingual education in 
Israel: Its influence on cultural identities and 
its impact on intergroup conflict. Journal of 
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 
24(6): 473–84.
Benson, Carol J. (2003). Mother Tongue-Based 
Bilingual Education: What, Why and How? 
Paper presented at the Informal Consultation 
on Ethnic Minority Language Issues and 
Challenges (UNESCO).
Bhatia, Tej K. and Ritchie, William C. (eds.) 
(2009). The New Handbook of Second Language 
Acquisition, 2nd edn. Bingley: Emerald Group.
Blanton, Carlos K. (2004). The Strange Career of 
Bilingual Education in Texas, 1836–1981. 
College Station, TX: Texas A&M University 
Press.
Castaneda v. Pickard, 781 F.2d 456 (United 
States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit 
1986).
Center for Jewish-Arab Education in Israel 
(2010). Hand-in-Hand: Building peace, one 
student at a time. Retrieved February 24, 2011, 
from www.handinhandk12.org/.
Crawford, James (1997). The campaign against 
Proposition 227: A post mortem. Bilingual 
Research Journal 21(1): 1–32.
Crawford, James (2000a). At War with Diversity: 
US Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety. 
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, James (2000b). Endangered Native 
American languages: What is to be done, and 
why? In J. Crawford (ed.), At War with Diversity: 
US Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety. 52–65. 
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, James (2004). Educating English 
Learners: Language Diversity in the Classroom, 
5th edn. Los Angeles: Bilingual Education 
Services, Inc.
Crawford, James (2008). Advocating for English 
Language Learners: Selected Essays. Clevedon: 
Multilingual Matters.
Davies, Alan and Elder, Catherine (2006). 
Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: 
Blackwell.
de Jong, Ester and Howard, Elizabeth (2009). 
Integration in two-way immersion education: 
Equalising linguistic benefits for all students. 
International Journal of Bilingual Education and 
Bilingualism 12(1): 81–99.
de Mejía, Anne-Marie (ed.) (2005). Bilingual 
Education in South America. Clevedon: 
Multilingual Matters.
Doughty, Catherine J. and Long, Michael H. 
(eds.) (2005). The Handbook of Second Language 
Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Echevarria, Jana and Graves, Anne (2007). 
Sheltered Content Instruction: Teaching English 
Language Learners with Diverse Abilities. 
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Escamilla, Kathy, Shannon, Shelia, 
Carlos, Silvana, and Garcia, Jorge (2003). 
Breaking the code: Colorodo’s defeat of the 
anti-bilingual education initiative 
(Amendment 31). Bilingual Research Journal 
27(3): 357–82.
Feng, Anwei. (ed.) (2007). Bilingual Education in 
China: Practices, Policies, and Concerns. 
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Freeman, Rebecca D. (1998). Bilingual Education 
and Social Change. Clevedon: Multilingual 
Matters.
Gandara, Patricia and Hopkins, Megan. (eds.) 
(2010). Forbidden Language: English Learners 
and Restrictive Language Policies. New York: 
Teachers College Press.
Gandara, Patricia, Losen, Daniel, August, Diane, 
Uriate, Miren, Gomez, M. Cecilia, and 
Hopkins, Megan (2010). Forbidden language: 
A brief history of U.S. language policies. In 
Patricia Gandara and Megan Hopkins (eds.), 
Forbidden Language: English Learners and 
Restrictive Language Policies. 20–33. New York: 
Teachers College Press.
García, Ofelia (2009). Bilingual Education in the 
21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, 
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Genesee, Fred (1995). The Canadian second 
language immersion program. In Ofelia 
Garcia and Colin Baker (eds.), Policy and 
Practice in Bilingual Education. 118–33. 
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Genesee, Fred (2006). What do we know about 
bilingual education for language majority 
students? In Tej K. Bhatia and William C. 
Ritchie (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism. 
547–76. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Genesee, Fred and Gandara, Patricia (1999). 
Bilingual education programs: A cross-
national perspective. Journal of Social Issues 
55(4): 665–85.
http://www.handinhandk12.org/
Bilingual Education 621
Genesee, Fred, Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn, 
Saunders, William M., and Christian, Donna 
(2006). Educating English language Learners: A 
Synthesis of Research Evidence. New York: 
Cambridge University Press.
Glass, Gene V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and 
meta-analysis of research. Educational 
Researcher 5: 3–8.
Glass, Gene V., McGaw, B., and Smith, Mary L. 
(1981). Meta-Analysis in Social Research. 
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gómez, Leo, Freeman, David E,, and Freeman, 
Yvonne S. (2005). Dual language education: A 
promising 50–50 model. Bilingual Research 
Journal 29(1): 145–64.
González, Josué M (2008). Introduction. In Josué 
M. González (ed.), Encyclopedia of Bilingual 
Education, Vol. 1. xxv–xxvii. Thousand Oaks, 
CA: Sage.
Greene, Jay (1997). A meta-analysis of the 
Rossell and Baker review of bilingual 
education research. Bilingual Research Journal 
21: 103–22.
Gregerson, Marilyn (2009). Learning to read in 
Ratanakiri: A case study from northeastern 
Cambodia. International Journal of Bilingual 
Education and Bilingualism 12(4): 429–47.
Kaplan, Robert B. (2002). The Oxford Handbook of 
Applied Linguistics. New York: Oxford 
University Press.
Kloss, Heinz (1998). The American Bilingual 
Tradition. Washington, DC: Center for Applied 
Linguistics and Delta Systems (Original 
Publication, 1977).
Lambert, Wallace E. and Tucker, G. Richard 
(1972). Bilingual Education of Children: The St. 
Lambert Experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury 
House.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (US Supreme Court 
1974).
Leibowitz, Arnold H. (1971). Educational Policy 
and Political Acceptance: The Imposition of 
English as the Language of Instruction in 
American Schools. Washington, DC: Center for 
Applied Linguistics.
Leibowitz, Arnold H. (1974). Language as a 
Means of Social Control: The United States 
Experience. Paper presented at the VIII World 
Congress of Sociology, University of Toronto, 
Canada.
Leibowitz, Arnold H. (1980). The Bilingual 
Education Act: A Legislative Analysis. 
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for 
Bilingual Education.
Lewis, E. G. (1978). Bilingualism and bilingual 
education: The ancient world to the 
rennaissane. In Bernard Spolsky and R. L. 
Cooper (eds.), Frontiers of Bilingual Education. 
22–93. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lin, Angel M. Y. and Man, Evelyn Y. F. (2009). 
Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian 
Perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong 
University Press.
Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn J. (1994). Promoting 
positive cross-cultural attitudes and perceived 
competence in culturally and linguistically 
diverse classrooms. In R. A. DeVillar, 
Christian J. Faltis, and James P. Cummins 
(eds.), Cultural Diversity in Schools: From 
Rhetoric to Practice. 189–206. Albany, NY: State 
University of New York Press.
Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn J. (2001). Dual 
Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual 
Matters.
Little, Mary E. R. and McCarty, TeresaL. (2006). 
Language Planning Challenges and Prospects in 
Native American Communities and Schools. 
Tempe: Education Policy Research Unit, 
Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona 
State University. Retrieved from http://nepc. 
colorado.edu/publication/language-planning- 
challenges-and-prospects-native-american-
communities-and-schools.
May, Stephen (ed.) (1999). Indigenous 
Community-Based Education. Clevedon: 
Multilingual Matters.
McCarty, Teresa L. (2002). A Place to be Navajo: 
Rough Rock and the Struggle for Self-
Determination in Indigenous Schooling. 
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Middleborg, Jorn (2005). Highland Children’s 
Education Project: A Pilot Project on 
Bilingual Education in Cambodia. Bangkok: 
UNESCO.
National Education Association (1966). The 
invisible minority . . . pero no vencibles: Report of 
the NEA-Tucson Survey on the Teaching of 
Spanish to the Spanish-Speaking. Washington, 
DC: Department of Rural Education, National 
Education Association.
Palmer, Deborah and Lynch, Anissa W. (2008). A 
bilingual education for a monolingual test? 
The pressure to prepare for TAKS and its 
influence on choices for language of 
instruction in Texas elementary bilingual 
classrooms. Language Policy 7(3): 217–35.
Pattanayak, Debi P. (ed.) (1990). Multilingualism 
in India. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/language-planning-challenges-and-prospects-native-american-communities-and-schools
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/language-planning-challenges-and-prospects-native-american-communities-and-schools
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/language-planning-challenges-and-prospects-native-american-communities-and-schools
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/language-planning-challenges-and-prospects-native-american-communities-and-schools
622 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
Perez, Bertha (2004). Becoming Biliterate: A Study 
of Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Education. 
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ramirez, J. David (1992). Executive summary. 
Bilingual Research Journal 16: 1–62.
Ramirez, J. David, Yuen, Sandra D., Ramey, 
Dena R., Pasta, David J., and Billings, David 
K. (1991). Final Report: Longitudinal Study of 
Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early 
Exit and Late-Exit Bilingual Education Programs 
for Language Minority Children. Vol. 1 
(Publication no. 300-87-0156). Washington, DC: 
U.S. Department of Education.
Roger, Peter, and Moorey, Stuart (1991). A 
Century of Biblical Archaeology. Louisville, KY: 
Westminister John Knox Press.
Rolstad, Kellie, Mahoney, Kate, and Glass, Gene 
V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of 
program effectiveness research on English 
language learners. Educational Policy 19(4): 
572–94.
Rossell, Christine H. and Baker, Keith (1996). 
The educational effectiveness of bilingual 
education. Research in the Teaching of English 
30(1): 7–74.
Ruiz, Richard (1984). Orientations in language 
planning. NABE Journal 8(2): 15–34.
Sayer, Peter (2008). Demystifying language 
mixing: Spanglish in school. Journal of Latinos 
and Education 7(2): 94–112.
Simpson, James (2011). The Routledge Handbook of 
Applied Linguistics. New York: Taylor & 
Francis.
Slavin, Robert E. and Cheung, Alan (2005). A 
synthesis of research on language of reading 
instruction for English-language learners. 
Review of Educational Research 75(2): 247–84.
Spolsky, Bernard and Hult, Francis M. (2008). 
The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. 
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Tamura, Eileen H. (1993). The English-only 
effort, the anti-Japanese campaign, and 
language acquisition in the education of 
Japanese Americans in Hawaii, 1914–1940. 
History of Education Quarterly 33(1): 37–58.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other 
Languages (2003). TESOL/NCATE program 
standards: Standards for the accrediation of 
initial programs in P-12 ESL teacher 
education. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from 
www.tesol.org/s_tesol/
seccss.asp?CID=219andDID=1689.
Thomas, Wayne P. and Collier, Virginia P. (2002). 
A National Study of School Effectiveness for 
Language Minority Students’ Long-Term 
Academic Achievement. Berkeley, CA: Center 
for Research on Education, Diversity and 
Excellence, University of California, Berkeley.
Thompson, Marilyn. DiCerbo, Kristen, 
Mahoney, Kate, and MacSwan, Jeff (2002). 
Exito en California? A validity critique of 
language program evaluations and analysis of 
English learner test scores. Education Policy 
Analysis Archives 10(7). Retrieved from http://
epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/286.
Toth, Carolyn R. (1990). German–English Bilingual 
Schools in America: The Cincinnati Tradition in 
Historical Contexts. New York: Peter Lang.
UNESCO (2007). Advocacy Kit for Promoting 
Multilingual Education: Including the Excluded. 
Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization.
Valdés, Guadalupe (1997). Dual-language 
immersion programs: A cautionary note 
concerning the education of language-
minority students. Harvard Educational Review 
67(3): 391–429.
von Raumer, Karl (1858). Wolfgang Ratich. 
American Journal of Education 5(13): 
229–56.
Wiley, Terrence G. (1998). The imposition of 
World War I era English-only policies and the 
fate of German in North America. In Thomas 
Ricento and Barbara Burnaby (eds.), Language 
and Politics in the United States and Canada: 
Myths and Realities. 211–41. Mahwah, NJ: 
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wiley, Terrence G. (2002). Accessing language 
rights in education: A brief history of the U.S. 
context. In James W. Tollefson (ed.), Language 
Policies in Education. 39–64. Mahwah, NJ: 
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wiley, Terrence G. and Wright, Wayne E. (2004). 
Against the undertow: The politics of 
language instruction in the United States. 
Educational Policy 18(1): 142–68.
Wilig, Ann C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected 
studies on the effectiveness of bilingual 
education. Review of Educational Research 55: 
269–317.
Wright, Wayne E. (2003). The success and 
demise of a Khmer (Cambodian) bilingual 
education program: A case study. In Clara C. 
Park, A. L. Goodwin and Stacey J. Lee (eds.), 
Asian American Identities, Families, and 
Schooling. 225–52. Greenwich, CT: Information 
Age Publishing.
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=219andDID=1689
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=219andDID=1689
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/286
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/286
Bilingual Education 623
Wright, Wayne E. (2005a). Evolution of Federal 
Policy and Implications of No Child Left Behind 
for language Minority Students (No. EPSL-0501-
101-LPRU). Tempe, AZ: Language Policy 
Research Unit, Education Policy Studies 
Laboratory, Arizona State University. 
Retrieved from: http://nepc.colorado.edu/
publication/evolution-federal-policy-and- 
implications-no-child-left-behind-for-
language-minority-stu.
Wright, Wayne E. (2005b). The political spectacle 
of Arizona’s Proposition 203. Educational 
Policy 19(5): 662–700.
Wright, Wayne E. (2007). Heritage language 
programs in the era of English-only and No 
Child Left Behind. Heritage Language Journal 
5(1): 1–26. Retrieved from www.international. 
ucla.edu/languages/heritagelanguages/
journal/article.asp?parentid=56454.
Wright, Wayne E. (2008). Primary language 
support. In Josué M. González (ed.), 
Encyclopedia of Bilingual Education. 666–8. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wright, Wayne E. (2010). Foundations for Teaching 
English Language Learners: Research, Theory, 
Policy, and Practice. Philadelphia: Caslon 
Publishing.
Yamauchi, Lois A., Ceppi, Andrea K., and 
Lau-Smith, Jo-Anne (2000). Teaching in a 
Hawaiian context: Educator perspectives on 
the Hawaiian language immersion program. 
Bilingual Research Journal 24(4).
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/evolution-federal-policy-and-implications-no-child-left-behind-for-language-minority-stu
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/evolution-federal-policy-and-implications-no-child-left-behind-for-language-minority-stuhttp://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/evolution-federal-policy-and-implications-no-child-left-behind-for-language-minority-stu
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/evolution-federal-policy-and-implications-no-child-left-behind-for-language-minority-stu
http://www.international.ucla.edu/languages/heritagelanguages/journal/article.asp?parentid=56454
http://www.international.ucla.edu/languages/heritagelanguages/journal/article.asp?parentid=56454
http://www.international.ucla.edu/languages/heritagelanguages/journal/article.asp?parentid=56454
	Title page
	Copyright page
	Contents
	Acknowledgments
	Contributors
	Introduction
	Part I: Overview and Foundations
	Introduction
	1: Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Some Central Concepts
	Introduction
	A Multilingual World
	Classifying Multilingualism
	Dealing with Multilingual Realities
	The Definition and Measurement of Personal Fluencies
	The Bilingual or Multilingual Individual
	Perspectives on Theory and Practice
	Language and Identity
	Notes
	References
	2: Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Bilingualism and Multilingualism Research
	The Fundamentals for Bilingualism and Multilingualism
	Linguistic diversity: What does it mean?
	Language contact
	Learning, using, and managing multiple languages
	Research Traditions and Methodological Perspectives
	Psycholinguistic approaches
	Linguistic approaches
	Sociolinguistic approaches
	Towards a Transdisciplinarity: Challenges and Future Directions
	References
	Part II: Neurological and Psychological Aspects of Bilingualism and Multilingualism
	Introduction
	The Neurology of Bilingualism and Multilingualism
	3: Bilingual Aphasia: Theoretical and Clinical Considerations
	Introduction
	Issues in the Case Literature on Bilingual or Polyglot Aphasias
	Methodological Concerns in the Bilingual Aphasia Case Literature
	Models of Bilingual Processing that Address Bilingual Aphasia
	The declarative/procedural memory model
	The inhibitory control model
	Hierarchical (translation) models
	Conclusions
	Acknowledgments
	References
	Approaches to Bilingualism, Multilingualism, and Second-Language Acquisition
	4: The Bilingual Child
	Introduction
	Speech Perception
	Speech Production
	Word Learning
	Morphology, Syntax, Language Differentiation, and Cross-Linguistic Influence
	Cognitive Correlates of Bilingualism
	More to Bilingual Acquisition: Similarities, Differences, Challenges, and Opportunities
	References
	5: Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Second-Language Acquisition
	Introduction
	Definitions of Bilinguals and Multilinguals
	The Complexity of Understanding Bilingualism and Multilingualism
	Conceptualizing and Assessing Language Proficiency
	Age and L2 Acquisition
	The Interaction between L1 and L2 (or Additional Nonnative Languages)
	Conclusion
	Notes
	References
	6: Multilingualism: New Perspectives on Syntactic Development
	Introduction
	Key Issues in First- and Second-Language Acquisition
	The issue of access to Universal Grammar in L2 acquisition
	The issue of ‘transfer’ from L1 to L2
	Multilingual Acquisition
	Theoretical Background
	The complementizer phrase (CP) setup
	Background Studies
	Design
	Results
	Berkes and Flynn
	Research Focus
	Enhancement Study
	Predictions
	Design and subjects’ data
	Results
	Discussion
	Conclusions
	Notes
	References
	7: Bilingualism and the Heritage Language Speaker
	Some Variables that Characterize Bilinguals
	Heritage Language Speakers
	Linguistic Competence in the Heritage Language
	From First and Primary Language to Secondary Language
	Is the Heritage Language Like a Second Language?
	Outstanding Issues
	References
	Bilingual and Multilingual Language Use: Knowledge, Comprehension, and Production
	8: Two Linguistic Systems in Contact: Grammar, Phonology, and Lexicon
	Introduction
	Morpho-syntax
	Interference
	Code-mixing
	Code-mixing and interference
	Phonology and Lexicon
	L1-oriented or L2-oriented?
	Categorial distinctions
	New Research Methodologies
	Concluding Remarks
	References
	9: The Comprehension of Words and Sentences in Two Languages
	The Comprehension of Words in Two Languages
	Language nonselectivity in bilingual word recognition
	The scope of cross-language activation
	The nature of cross-language activation
	Other aspects of bilingual lexical processing
	The Comprehension of Sentences in Two Languages
	Shallow structures all the way through?
	Relative clauses ambiguity resolution
	Recent challenges to the shallow structure hypothesis
	The native-like processing of a second language
	Processing a native language like a second language
	Conclusions
	References
	10: An Appraisal of the Bilingual Language Production System: Quantitatively or Qualitatively Different from Monolinguals?
	Introduction
	Monolingual speech production
	Bilingual Production at the Pre-lexical Level
	Bilingual Production at the Lexical Level
	Two words for one concept
	The bilingual disadvantage
	Cognate effects
	Post-lexical Processing
	Summary and Conclusions
	Acknowledgments
	Note
	References
	Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Memory, Cognition, and Emotion
	11: Bilingual Memory
	Introduction
	Early Theoretical Formulations
	The Bilingual Coordinate–Compound Distinction
	One- vs. Two-Memory Systems
	The Processes View of Bilingual Memory
	The Bilingual Dual Coding Model
	Hierarchical Models of Bilingual Memory
	Word association and concept mediation models
	The revised hierarchical model
	Bilingual Memory Representations at the Word-Type Level
	The distributed conceptual feature model of bilingual memory representations
	Bilingual Lexical Access
	Conclusions
	Acknowledgments
	References
	12: Bilingualism and Emotion: Implications for Mental Health
	Introduction
	Bilingualism and Emotion: How Bilinguals Use Language to Express Their Emotions
	Emotional expression in the native language vs. a second language
	Bilingual Autobiographical Memory
	Bilingual autobiographical memory and encoding specificity
	Bilingual autobiographical memory and the self
	False memories
	Code-Switching
	Therapy with Bilinguals: How Differences in Language Expression Affect Therapy
	Implications of code-switching
	Cultural implications of language structure
	Use of Interpreters
	Disadvantages and benefits to using interpreters in therapy
	Training and education for interpreters
	Cultural Issues and Culture-specific Strategies in the Treatment of Bilinguals
	Cultural differences and norms
	Utilization of mental health services by minority populations
	Cultural barriers in treatment with bilinguals
	Training multicultural counselors
	Culturally specific techniques in therapy
	Conclusions and Directions for Future Research
	Acknowledgments
	References
	The Bilingual’s and Multilingual’s Repertoire: Code-Mixing, Code-Switching, and Communication Accommodation
	13: Code-Switching and Grammatical Theory
	Early Research
	Constraints on Code-Switching, Constraints on Syntax
	The Emergence of Theoretical Approaches to Code-Switching
	A Minimalist Approach to Code-Switching
	Code-switching in head movement contexts
	Phonological restrictions on code-switching
	Code-switching in adjective-noun contexts
	Code-switching with pronouns and lexical DPs
	Conclusions
	Notes
	References
	14: Sign Language–Spoken Language Bilingualism and the Derivation of Bimodally Mixed Sentences
	Bimodal Bilingualism
	Availability and Employment of Bimodal Mixing Options
	A Minimalist Program of Inquiry into Language Mixing
	A minimalist assumption
	Types of bimodal mixing
	The Products of Bimodal Mixing
	Sequential properties of bimodal CS
	Simultaneous properties of bimodal mixing
	Contact signing
	Bimodal mixing in languages with different word orders
	Lexical/semantic compatibility in bimodal mixing
	Derivation of Bimodally Mixed Sentences
	Bimodal lexical compounds and simultaneity
	Nonparallel lexical derivations
	Conclusion
	Summary of bimodal mixing characteristics
	Minimalist assumptions for bimodal mixing
	References
	15: Social and Psychological Factors in Language Mixing
	IntroductionPreliminary remarks
	Definitions of code-mixing and code-switching, borrowing, and other related phenomenon
	Four Questions
	The systematicity of LM/S
	Motivations for language choice and mixing
	Societal evaluation of language mixing
	Bilinguals’ self-perception of language-mixing
	Conclusions
	References
	16: Accommodating Multilinguality
	CAT: A Brief Overview of Some Basic Concepts and Processes
	Strategies of convergence and divergence: motives and evaluations
	A Social Psychologically-Oriented Model of Bilingual and Multilingual Accommodation
	Intergroup context
	Sociolinguistic setting
	Social psychological processes
	Epilogue
	References
	17: Bilingualism and Gesture
	Introduction
	The Connection between Gestures, Speech, and Language
	What are gestures?
	Culture- and language-specific gestural repertoires in production
	How are gestures studied?
	Bilingual Children and Gestures
	Bilingual Adults and Gestures
	Proficiency and compensation
	Cross-linguistic influences and use of two languages
	Bilingual interaction
	Bi-modal bilingualism
	Conclusions
	References
	Part III: Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
	Introduction
	Language Contact, Maintenance, and Endangerment
	18: The Bilingual and Multilingual Community
	Introduction
	Types of bilingual and multilingual speech communities
	Defining communities
	The nation-state as a multilingual speech community
	The composition of multilingual nation-states
	Indigenous vs. immigrant minorities
	Diglossia and Domains of Language Use in Bilingual Communities
	The Changing Face of Multilingualism in the Modern World and the Decline of Small Speech Communities
	Public policy issues: language planning for multilingual speech communities
	The regulation of bilingualism within multilingual nation-states
	De jure vs. de facto bilingualism
	Conclusion
	References
	19: Language Maintenance, Language Shift, and Reversing Language Shift
	Introduction: Perspective: American and International
	Language Shift as the Societal Norm
	Local and periodic ups and downs vs. straight-line trends
	Intergenerational NEMT transmission
	Minority languages in the national interest
	Making the World Safe (or at Least Safer) for Cultural Democracy
	Permissive language defense
	Active language defenses
	Preventive (proactive) defenses of threatened multilingualism in the USA
	Can Language Shift Be Reversed?
	What is reversing language shift (RLS)?
	A conceptually parsimonious approach to describing and prescribing: The Graded Intergenerational Dislocation Scale (GIDS)
	A glance at a few selected cases
	Concluding and Summary Observations
	References
	20: Linguistic Imperialism and Endangered Languages
	Introduction: Connecting Linguistic Imperialism with Endangered Languages
	The State of the World’s Endangered Languages
	Linguistic Imperialism Past and Present
	Diverse Approaches to Language Dominance: Methodological and Theoretical Challenges
	Encouraging Examples of Change that Strengthen Endangered Languages and Multilingualism
	Acknowledgments
	References
	21: Multilingualism, Indigenization, and Creolization
	Indigenization
	Sociohistorical contexts for indigenization
	Contact-induced language change
	Psycholinguistic processes in indigenization
	Sociolinguistic processes in indigenization: Emergence of new norms
	Contact-induced or ordinary language change?
	Creolization
	Sociohistorical contexts for creole formation
	Psycholinguistic processes in creolization
	Sociolinguistic processes in creole formation: Emergence of new norms
	Conclusion
	References
	22: Multilingualism and Family Welfare
	Introduction
	Factors that Affect Multilingual Family Well-Being
	Differences in parental childrearing beliefs and practices
	Quality of family communication
	Strategies for Promoting Multilingual Family Welfare
	Planning
	Negotiation
	Conclusion
	Notes
	References
	Bilingualism and Multilingualism: The Media, Education, Literacy, and the Law
	23: Bilingualism and Multilingualism in the Global Media and Advertising
	Globalization and International Advertising: Key Issues
	Approaches to Advertising Discourse
	A plurilingual view: conceptual framework
	Negative view
	Neutral view
	Positive view
	Typology of the Global Spread of English and Language-mixing
	Bilingualism through non-Roman scripts
	Multilingualism and Structural Domains
	English and structural domain dependency
	Globalization and the Marketization of English
	Quantitative aspects of English
	Globalization from the bottom up
	English and the Mystique Factor
	Literary and psycholinguistic determinants
	Language Change: The Interaction of Outer and Expanding Circles
	Adaptation
	Double marking and reduplication
	Hybridization
	Acronyms and truncation
	Archaism
	Analogical patterning
	Linguistic Accommodation and Advertiser’s Perception
	Conclusion
	Acknowledgments
	References
	24: Bilingual Education
	Brief History of Bilingual Education
	Overview of Bilingual Education Research
	Research on the effectiveness of bilingual education
	Methodological and Theoretical Issues
	Transitional bilingual education programs
	Developmental bilingual education programs
	Dual language programs
	Bilingual immersion programs
	Problem Areas
	Bilingual teacher training and availability
	Emphasis on weak forms of bilingual education
	Anti-bilingual education state voter initiatives in the United States
	De-emphasis in U.S. federal education policy
	Assessment and accountability policies discourage bilingual education
	Challenges of effectiveness research
	Directions for Future Work
	Notes
	References
	25: The Impact of Bilingualism on Language and Literacy Development
	Metalinguistic Concepts
	Word awareness
	Syntactic awareness
	Phonological awareness
	Literacy
	Learning about stories
	Learning about print
	Reading
	The Bilingual Connection
	References
	26: Bilingualism and Writing Systems
	Basic Concepts and Terminology
	Writing systems
	Research on bilingualism and writing systems
	Terminology and definitions
	Methods
	Reading and Writing More Than One Writing System
	The acquisition of biliteracy
	Cross-orthographic influences in biliterates
	Beyond Cross-Orthographic Effects: How Biliterates Differ from Monoliterates
	Positive effects on the use of writing systems
	Creative uses of writing systems
	Learning an additional writing system
	The simultaneous activation of two writing systems
	The biliterate brain
	Conclusion
	Writing Systems and Metalinguistic Awareness in Bilinguals
	Phonemic awareness
	Word awareness and morphological awareness
	Metalinguistic awareness and second-language pronunciation
	Conclusion
	Nonlinguistic Cognitive Consequences of Biliteracy
	Conclusions
	References
	27: Multilingualism and Forensic Linguistics
	Introduction
	Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Forensic Linguistics: Definition and Scope
	Language Knowledge and Use: Tapping Unconscious and Conscious Dimensions
	Methodology
	The Nature of Evidence: DNA and Fingerprints vs. Linguistic Fingerprints
	Developing linguistic fingerprints: decoding personal or group traits
	The Bi-/Multilingual Mind and Language Use: Psycholinguistic Perspectives
	Perceptual assumptions
	Memory, agentivity, and evidentiality
	Linguistic variation
	Forensic phonetics
	Trademark infringement
	Product liability/warning labels
	Plurilingualism in the courts: cross-linguistic translations
	Conclusion
	Acknowledgment
	References
	Part IV: Global Perspectives and Challenges: Case Studies
	Introduction
	28: Bilingualism and Multilingualism in North America
	Introduction
	Terms of reference
	Plurilingual America
	Borderlands of Language and Nationality
	Remains of Native America
	National borders
	Language boundaries
	Population mobility
	Linguistic uniformity
	Bilinguals and their Communities
	Cartographic evidence
	Bilingual communities
	The urban bilinguals
	Extraterritorial communities
	The Future of American Plurilingualism
	Media societies
	Communities as networks
	Languages without borders
	Research on NorthAmerican Bilingualism
	Editor’s Note
	References
	29: Bilingualism in Latin America
	Introduction
	Sociolinguistic Characteristics
	Mexico and Central America
	Caribbean
	Andean region
	Southern cone
	Bilingualism
	References
	30: Bilingualism in Europe
	Introduction
	The European Union (EU)
	Official languages and other languages
	Europe, a Continent of Sustained Migrations
	Human migrations in the past
	Human migration in the present
	Immigrant languages in France
	Transitional remarks
	Europe, a Continent of Linguistically Powerful States and Less Powerful Minorities
	Regional or minority languages in the EU
	Three case studies: French, Breton, and Sorb
	Echo from the East
	Transitional remarks
	Recent Trends in Education and Communication in Europe
	Foreign languages in education in Europe
	Educational bilingualism
	The generalization of English as a transnational medium
	General Conclusions and Open Questions
	Acknowledgments
	Note
	References
	31: Turkish as an Immigrant Language in Europe
	History and Current Situation
	Language Choice, Maintenance and Shift
	Acquisition
	Code-Switching
	Communicative repertoires
	Linguistic characteristics of code-switching
	Functions of alternation
	Language Change
	Loan translations
	Borrowing of structure
	Conclusion
	Abbreviations Used
	References
	32: Multilingualism in Southern Africa
	Introduction
	Multilingualism, Language Status, and Language Use
	Multilingualism and Language Policy
	Multilingualism and Language Practice in Post-Apartheid South Africa
	Multilingualism and language practice in South Africa’s media
	Multilingualism and language practice in South Africa’s educational system
	Multilingualism and the Indices of Language Policy Failure in South Africa
	Multilingualism and escape clauses in South Africa’s new language policy
	Multilingualism and South Africa’s emerging black elite closure
	Multilingualism and Consequences of Language Policy Failure in South Africa
	Multilingualism, language policy failure, and literacy decline
	Multilingualism, Language Policy Failure, and Language Shift
	Conclusion
	Notes
	References
	33: Multilingualism in Greater China and the Chinese Language Diaspora
	Introduction
	China
	The (Han) Chinese language
	Minority nationalities and their languages
	Bilingualism, dialect bilingualism, and diglossia
	Bilingual education
	Hong Kong
	Diglossia with (increasing) bilingualism
	Bilingual education
	Cantonese–English code-switching
	Macao
	Language death
	Other language-contact phenomena
	Taiwan
	Triglossia with multilingualism
	Language shift and language death
	Language revitalization and bilingual education
	The Chinese Language Diaspora
	Demography, history, and linguistic origins
	Macro-sociolinguistic profiles of the current Chinese language diaspora
	Chinese heritage language maintenance
	Chinese language media
	Conclusion
	Note
	References
	34: Bilingualism and Multilingualism in South Asia
	Introduction
	A Linguistic Profile of South Asia
	South Asia
	India
	Sources and Processes of Multilingualism
	The historical roles of Sanskrit, Persian, and English
	Present-day India/SA
	Salient Features of SA Multilingualism
	Indian multilingualism: a natural phenomenon
	Language attitudes and linguistic accommodation
	Stable multilingualism and multiple identities
	Verbal repertoire
	Diglossic/high–low pattern
	Freedom of choice and language planning
	Language minorities: language maintenance and shift
	Conclusion
	Acknowledgment
	References
	35: Multilingualism and Language Renewal in Ex-Soviet Central Asia
	Introduction
	Territory, Ethnos, and the Sociolinguistic Setting
	Ethnic populations and varying types of language communities
	Demographic changes
	Languages and Language Status
	Titular languages
	State languages
	Official and nonofficial minority languages
	Language Promotion in the Wake of the 1989–1990 Language Laws
	Laws and regulations
	Alphabets
	Vocabulary
	New Patterns of Language Behavior
	Language proficiency, resources, and coordination
	Concluding Remarks: A New Linguistic Era
	Acknowledgments
	References
	36: Bilingualism/Multilingualism in the Middle East and North Africa: A Focus on Cross-National and Diglossic Bilingualism/Multilingualism
	Introduction
	Bilingualism and multilingualism, the Middle East and North Africa
	Historical and cultural background
	The MENA language array
	The formal state of the MENA languages
	The four language skills and bilingualism/multilingualism in MENA
	Sociolinguistic aspects in MENA
	Bilingualism and Multilingualism in the MENA
	Loanwords in Arabic at present
	Diglossia, Arabic, and other languages
	Code-switching and diglossia
	Multilingualism and Arabic
	Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic bilingual/multilingual research on MENA languages
	Summary and Conclusion
	Acknowledgments
	Notes
	References
	Indexbeen native speakers of Aramaic, and 
then, by some form of bilingual or multilingual education, learned Hebrew, Latin, 
and Greek. It could not have been otherwise because that part of the world was a 
crossroads for many visitors and conquerors (p. 872).
Beardsmore (2009) notes that bilingual education has long existed in certain 
parts of Europe. Kloss (1998), in his landmark book The American Bilingual Tradi-
tion, documents the existence of bilingual education in North America as early as 
600 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
the seventeenth century, prior to the founding of the United States. Bilingual 
education was most common in those areas where non-English-speaking immi-
grants settled and made up a major portion of the local population. For example, 
German–English bilingual education was offered in the seventeenth century and 
was common in German communities throughout the country up to the time of 
the U.S. entrance into the First World War (Toth 1990; Wiley 1998). Spanish–
English bilingual education programs were available throughout the Southwest 
in the nineteenth century (Blanton 2004). In 1848 the law in the territory of New 
Mexico (which included modern-day Arizona and parts of Colorado, Utah, and 
Nevada) called for Spanish–English bilingual programs; other schools in the 
United States offered instruction in and through Chinese, Japanese, French, Chero-
kee, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Italian, Polish, Dutch, and Czech (Crawford 
2004). An article published in 1858 in the American Journal of Education touted the 
work of Wolfgang Ratich, a language scholar in Germany, who developed an 
effective bilingual education model in 1612 emphasizing mother-tongue literacy 
first before transition to additional languages (von Raumer 1858).
Bilingual education is intricately tied to political, economic, historical, and 
sociocultural factors. Thus, while bilingual education has a long history, through-
out that history there have been periods in different contexts where bilingual 
programs have been actively promoted, merely tolerated, or overtly restricted by 
local and central governments (Wiley 2002; Wiley and Wright 2004). As Arnold 
Leibowitz (1971) has argued, language policy – including decisions about lan-
guage of instruction in schools – is rarely about language itself, but rather about 
the groups of people who happen to speak nondominant languages; language 
policies are a means of social control, thus policies regarding the allowance or 
restriction of bilingual education frequently have less to do with education and 
more to do with politics and other extra-educational factors (Leibowitz 1971, 
1974). As García (2009) explains, ‘The tensions surrounding bilingual education 
often have to do with dominant groups protecting their power’ (p. 12).
In the United States, for example, a general period of tolerance in the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries (for some groups at least) was followed by a 
period of restriction in the first half of the twentieth century during the First and 
Second World Wars when a combination of patriotism and nationalism led to 
restrictions on bilingual programs for German and Japanese Americans and other 
students. Ultimately 35 states passed legislation mandating English as the lan-
guage of instruction in schools (Leibowitz 1971; Wiley 2002). In the political and 
social context of the Civil Rights Movement, the high failure rates and needs of 
Hispanic students were brought to the forefront through a conference and report 
sponsored by the National Education Association (1966). The report also 
highlighted the success of a handful of existing innovative bilingual education 
programs throughout the country. This attention ultimately led to the develop-
ment of the 1968 Bilingual Education Act (BEA) which, despite ambiguity and 
unclear goals, provided official federal endorsement and support for bilingual 
education programs. The passage of the BEA led to the adoption of similar policies 
in several states.
Bilingual Education 601
The federal government also pushed states and local education agencies to 
develop bilingual education programs following the landmark U.S. Supreme 
Court decision in Lau v. Nichols (‘Lau v. Nichols’ 1974), where the court declared 
that schools must address the unique linguistic and educational needs of limited 
English proficient students. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 
1974 codified the Lau decision by declaring that schools must ‘take appropriate 
action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its stu-
dents in its instructional programs’ (Wright 2010). By the end of the twentieth 
century, 32 states had statutes allowing non-English, native-language instruction, 
7 states had mandated it under certain conditions, and 7 other states had stopped 
enforcing their laws prohibiting native-language instruction (Crawford 2004; Lei-
bowitz 1980; Wright 2010).
The Bilingual Education Act was re-authorized five times between 1974 and 
1994. Each re-authorization led to more precise definitions of bilingual education 
and clearer goals and expected outcomes for funded bilingual programs. But 
modifications to the Act also reflected the social tensions and political debates 
surrounding bilingual education, leading at times to greater emphasis on transi-
tional programs which exited students as quickly as possible to English-only 
classrooms, and higher percentages of funds reserved for ‘special alternative 
instructional programs’ such as sheltered English immersion programs, which 
did not include native-language instruction. Backlash against the federal Lau 
Remedies made it clear that neither the Lau decision nor the EEOA mandated 
bilingual education, and subsequent case law such as Castaneda vs. Pickard (1986) 
indicated that specially designed nonbilingual programs were sufficient to meet 
federal requirements for limited English proficient students. Around the turn of 
the twenty-first century, a new wave of restrictions came in following the passage 
of anti-bilingual education voter initiatives in California (1998), Arizona (2000), 
and Massachusetts (2002), and the elimination of the Bilingual Education Act 
following the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. These 
restrictions have largely been driven by misinformation and anti-Hispanic senti-
ment within the context of fierce national debates over immigration (Gandara 
et al. 2010).
Despite the current wave of restrictions, bilingual education is alive and well 
in the United States – even in the states with legal restrictions – and around the 
world. One simple explanation for the survival of bilingual programs is that they 
are an effective means of providing language minority students equal access to 
the core curriculum, helping them learn the dominant language(s) of society, and 
in the case of strong bilingual models, helping students develop and maintain 
high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy. Many parents want them for their chil-
dren, many educators are committed to them, and some educational leaders and 
policy makers understand the personal, educational, and societal benefits of 
quality bilingual education programs. In addition, there is strong research evi-
dence on the benefits and effectiveness of bilingual education. UNESCO empha-
sizes bilingual education (or ‘mother-tongue-based multilingual education’) in its 
work with developing countries as:
602 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
1 a means of improving educational quality by building upon the knowledge and 
experience of the learners and teachers;
2 a means of promoting both social and gender equality and as a key element of 
linguistically diverse societies;
3 an essential component of inter-cultural education in order to encourage 
understanding between different population groups and ensure respect for fun-
damental rights (UNESCO 2007: 1–2).
Overviewof Bilingual Education Research
Like the study of bilingualism itself, bilingual education is an interdisciplinary 
field drawing upon a wide range of theory and research across different academic 
fields such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, second-language acquisition, psychol-
ogy, anthropology, and education. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to review 
this research fully. Much of it is covered elsewhere in this handbook and in hand-
books on second-language acquisition (Bhatia and Ritchie 2009; Doughty and 
Long 2005), applied linguistics (Davies and Elder 2006; Kaplan 2002; Simpson 
2011), and educational linguistics (Spolsky and Hult 2008). Briefly, however, 
research from these fields helps educators make informed decisions about impor-
tant issues such as identifying students in need of bilingual education, placing 
students in the most appropriate program model, deciding which program models 
best serve a given student population, determining how long students should be 
in the programs, and assessing student progress in language and academic 
development. This research also helps to inform classroom teachers in bilingual 
education as they make principled decisions in planning and delivering effective 
language and content-area lessons, in structuring the use of the two languages in 
the classrooms, in helping students adjust culturally and linguistically, in identify-
ing their students′ strengths and challenges, and in advocating for their students 
and their families (Wright 2010).
Research on the effectiveness of bilingual education
Research on the effectiveness of bilingual education is usually based on com-
parisons of the performance of students in bilingual education programs versus 
similar students in nonbilingual programs. While such quantitative comparisons 
are often fraught with methodological challenges, incomplete data, and uncontrol-
lable factors, carefully designed studies can provide important insights into the 
effectiveness, or lack thereof, of bilingual education programs. Research syntheses 
such as meta-analysis provide a powerful way of summarizing the findings across 
many studies and of determining if and to what degree there is research support-
ing a particular program model, strategy, or instructional approach.
In a report conducted under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education, 
Baker and de Kanter (1981) reviewed 28 studies on bilingual education, and con-
cluded that there was weak research evidence for bilingual education. The report 
Bilingual Education 603
was released during President Ronald Reagan’s first year in office, and corre-
sponded with a period of backlash against what many perceived as federal man-
dates for bilingual education. The Baker and de Kanter report was widely touted 
by opponents of bilingual education who favored English immersion approaches. 
The report, however, was also highly criticized by other scholars who questioned 
the criteria used in terms of which studies to include and exclude in the 
meta-analysis, and the focus and questions that were being asked in defining 
‘effectiveness’ (Wilig 1985).
Since 1985, there have been six major research syntheses demonstrating the 
effectiveness of bilingual education. Willig (1985) conducted a meta-analysis using 
the same studies as Baker and de Kanter, with some modifications of the inclusion 
criteria and to the types of questions asked. She found advantages of bilingual 
education cutting across content areas and languages:
When statistical controls for methodological inadequacies were employed, participa-
tion in bilingual education programs consistently produced small to moderate 
differences favoring bilingual education for tests of reading, language skills, math-
ematics, and total achievement when the tests were in English, and for reading, 
language, mathematics, writing, social studies, listening comprehension, and atti-
tudes toward school or self when tests were in other languages (p. 269).
In a similar manner, Greene (1997) conducted a meta-analysis re-synthesis of 
another review conducted by Rossell and Baker (1996) who claimed that the 
results showed the superiority of English immersion approaches. Greene cor-
rected for methodological issues, used stricter inclusion criteria, and narrowed the 
range of methodologically acceptable studies for inclusion down from 75 to 11. 
He concluded that ‘the use of at least some native language in the instruction of 
limited English proficient children has moderate beneficial effects on those chil-
dren relative to their being taught only in English’ (p. 103).
Rolstad, Mahoney, and Glass (2005) conducted a new meta-analysis of 17 
studies on bilingual education published subsequent to Willig’s meta-analysis. 
Given that the third author is the inventor of meta-analysis (Glass 1976), the 
study’s rigorous methodology followed strategies established by Glass and his 
colleagues which enables the inclusion of as many studies as possible (Glass, 
McGaw, and Smith 1981). Rolstad, Mahoney, and Glass (2005) found ‘that bilin-
gual education is consistently superior to all-English approaches,’ and concluded 
‘that bilingual education programs are effective in promoting academic achieve-
ment, and that sound educational policy should permit and even encourage the 
development and implementation of bilingual education programs’ (p. 572). 
Another review conducted the same year by Slavin and Cheung (2005), used a 
methodology developed by Slavin called ‘best-evidence synthesis’ which ‘closely 
resembles meta-analysis’ but ‘requires more extensive description of key studies’ 
(p. 248). Slavin and Cheung found that ‘existing evidence favors bilingual 
approaches, especially paired bilingual strategies that teach reading in the native 
language and English at different times each day’ (p. 247).
604 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
In 2002 the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth 
was formed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Science, 
by selecting 13 experts in ‘second-language development, cognitive development, 
curriculum and instruction, assessment, and methodology to review the quantita-
tive and qualitative research on the development of literacy in language-minority 
students’ (August and Shanahan 2006b: 2). Over the next four years the panel 
undertook a rigorous review of the research literature, and issued a report of their 
findings in 2006 (August and Shanahan 2006a). One major finding was that ‘Oral 
proficiency and literacy in the first language can be used to facilitate literacy 
development in English’ and that ‘students who are literate in their first language 
are likely to be advantaged in the acquisition of English literacy’ (August and 
Shanahan 2006b: 5). Specifically in terms of language of instruction, the panel 
found advantages for bilingual instruction:
The research indicates that instructional programs work when they provide 
opportunities for students to develop proficiency in their first language. Studies 
that compare bilingual instruction with English-only instruction demonstrate that 
language-minority students instructed in their native language as well as in English 
perform better, on average, on measures of English reading proficiency than language-
minority students instructed only in English. This is the case at both the elementary 
and secondary levels (August and Shanahan 2006b: 5).
Another major review of the research literature on English language learners 
in the United States was conducted by a team of 13 researchers2 affiliated with the 
Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) at UC Ber-
keley and was also published in 2006 (Genesee et al. 2006). The CREDE researchers 
focused on studies published in the United States within the previous 20 years. 
Using rigorous selection criteria, approximately 200 articles and reports were 
ultimately selected for inclusionin the synthesis. The CREDE researchers found 
that maintenance and development of students’ native languages do not detract 
from English literacy development, and that there are clear advantages for stu-
dents with native-language literacy skills in developing English literacy skills. 
They also found that ‘there is strong convergent evidence that the educational 
success of English language learners (ELLs) is positively related to sustained 
instruction through the students’ first language’ (p. 201).
In summary, the research evidence over the past three decades provides strong 
support for bilingual education. However, note that in the six major research 
syntheses described above, there is a narrow focus on the advantage of L1 literacy 
in learning L2 literacy, and whether students in bilingual education programs 
attained academic gains in comparison to students in nonbilingual programs. 
While clearly important, this narrow focus ignores other personal and societal 
benefits of bilingual education that have been documented in the research. Baker 
(2008) outlines several of these benefits of bilingual education, including: (a) it 
enables students to engage in wider communication across generations, regions, 
and cultural groups; (b) it can deepen an engagement with the cultures associated 
Bilingual Education 605
with the languages, fostering sympathetic and more tolerant understanding of 
differences; (c) it enables students to access literacy practices in two (or more) 
languages which can widen choice of literature for enjoyment and give more 
opportunities to understand different perspectives and view points; (d) it enables 
students to obtain the cognitive benefits of bilingualism; (e) it may increase stu-
dents’ self-esteem; (f) it can aid in the establishment of a more secure identity at 
a local, regional, and national level; and (g) it can lead to economic advantages 
by making students more marketable for jobs requiring bilingual skills (see also 
Baker and Jones 1999). Societal benefits of bilingual education include: (a) better 
educated and informed citizens; (b) better social relations and more cohesive com-
munities; (c) availability of bilingual citizens to fulfill critically needed positions 
in international diplomacy, global business, national security, and humanitarian 
service; and (d) availability of bilingual citizens to effectively serve international 
tourists and newcomer immigrants. These and other personal and societal advan-
tages go well beyond simple notions of academic achievement typically measured 
with narrow tests.
Methodological and Theoretical Issues
A major methodological issue is the design and implementation of various models 
of bilingual education programs. There are many different models a school may 
adopt or modify. Below I will briefly describe some of the common models in use 
in the United States and around the world, and highlight some of the methodo-
logical and theoretical issues within each. But first, it is important to note what 
research has shown to be essential components of effective bilingual programs 
(see Table 24.1). First, students must be provided daily with explicit instruction in 
the target second (or third, or fourth . . . ) language in which the students lack 
proficiency (e.g., English as a second language). Second, students must be given 
equal access to the same academic content as native speakers of the second 
language. In bilingual education programs, as noted above, one or more content 
areas are taught through the medium of the students’ native language while 
others are taught in the target second language, but in a specially designed 
manner that makes the instruction comprehensible, while supporting students’ 
second-language development (e.g., sheltered English content-area instruction) 
(Echevarria and Graves 2007). Finally, during times when the second language is 
the medium of instruction, teachers may provide primary (native) language 
support as needed to maximize students’ comprehension. Bilingual program 
models vary in terms of the amount of time allotted for each of these components, 
and also in terms of the end goals of the program.
Baker (2006) makes an important distinction between weak forms and strong 
forms of bilingual education. In weak forms, native-language content-area instruc-
tion is minimal, and the goal is to move students as quickly as possible into 
mainstream classrooms. Such programs usually result in students losing (or 
failing to fully develop) proficiency in their native language, becoming relatively 
606 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
monolingual in the target second language, and becoming fully assimilated (to 
the extent allowed by the dominant society). Weak programs are subtractive, 
meaning they contribute to taking away students’ native languages and cultures. 
In contrast, strong forms of bilingual education focus on helping students develop 
and maintain high levels of proficiency and literacy in both their native and the 
target second languages. Strong programs usually result in students who are 
bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural. Strong forms are additive, meaning they add 
a new language and culture to the students’ native languages and cultures.
Transitional bilingual education programs
Transitional bilingual education (TBE) programs, also called early-exit programs, 
are the most common type of bilingual program in the United States. TBE 
Table 24.1 Essential components of effective bilingual programs
Second language instruction for 
nonnative speakers
Content-area instruction Primary language 
support
Pull-out 
instruction
In-class 
instruction
Native 
language 
instruction
Sheltered 
instruction
A trained 
specialist 
teacher 
pulls 
students 
out of 
regular 
classroom 
for second-
language 
instruction
The classroom 
teacher is 
trained and 
certified to 
provide 
second-
language 
instruction 
within the 
classroom
One or more 
content 
areas are 
taught in 
students’ 
native 
languages
One or more 
content 
areas are 
taught in 
the second 
language 
using 
sheltered 
instruction 
strategies 
and 
techniques
The classroom 
teacher 
employs a 
variety of 
strategies and 
techniques 
involving the 
effective use of 
students’ 
native 
languages to 
increase their 
comprehension 
of second 
language and 
sheltered 
content 
instruction
Source: Adapted from Wright (2010)
Bilingual Education 607
programs target students who speak the same native language (L1), and are 
usually found in the primary grades of elementary school. The goal is to transition 
the students to a mainstream English-only classroom as quickly as possible. L1 
content-area instruction ensures that students do not fall behind academically 
while learning a new second language (L2).
TBE programs typically begin in kindergarten. About 90% of language arts and 
other content areas are taught in the L1 and about 10% through sheltered L2 
instruction. Students also receive daily L2 instruction. Each year the amount of L1 
instruction is decreased as the amount of sheltered L2 instruction is increased. 
Students first learn to read and write in their L1. After 2 to 3 years, students are 
transitioned to L2 language arts instruction, and the following year they are 
placed in a regular mainstream classroom. Some weaker versions of this model 
attempt to transition students to monolingual L2 instruction much sooner.
Longitudinal research in the United States on the effectiveness of different types 
of bilingual and English-medium programs demonstrates that TBE programs are 
as or more effective than English-medium programs, but they are less effective 
than other bilingual education models in ensuring that English language learners 
reach parity with their English-speaking peers by the time they complete the 
program (Ramirez et al. 1991; Thomas and Collier 2002).
Researchers and practitioners have identified the following issues associatedwith TBE:
• TBE programs tend to have a ‘language-as-problem’ orientation (Ruiz 1984) 
and thus take a deficit view of students. Also, because the goal of TBE pro-
grams is quick transition to L2, these programs tend to lead to subtractive 
bilingualism. Many view the TBE model as essentially a remedial program 
(see, e.g., Crawford 2004).
• TBE programs reflect an assumption that students can become proficient in 
the L2 in just 2 to 3 years and thus many students may be pushed into mono-
lingual L2 mainstream classrooms before they are ready.
• Students in TBE programs may be segregated from the academic mainstream 
for most or all of their instructional day, making it difficult for them to find 
opportunities to interact with and learn alongside native and other proficient 
speakers of the L2.
• Many immigrant students do not begin school in their new country in kinder-
garten. They start in the grade level that matches their age at their time of 
arrival. Since most TBE programs are in the elementary grades, there may not 
be a TBE program available for all who need it.
Despite these concerns, TBE programs have been the most common bilingual 
education model in the United States mainly because this model has received the 
greatest amount of support since the passage of the Bilingual Education Act of 
1968. The TBE model has been replicated in many countries, particularly in devel-
oping countries receiving assistance from international organizations such as 
608 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
UNESCO (2007) and UNICEF. The TBE model appeals to policy makers in the 
United States and other countries given that the use of the L1 is temporary, and 
the overall focus is moving students to mainstream classrooms in the national 
language as quickly as possible. Nonetheless, the TBE model is still much pre-
ferred over nonbilingual models. Offering students, particularly young children, 
an opportunity to develop literacy skills and academic content in their native 
language while they are learning and developing proficiency in the dominant 
national language is much more humane than the ‘sink-or-swim’ approach of 
throwing them into a mainstream classroom where they may become frustrated 
and discouraged. Schools that have established effective TBE programs are often 
able to evolve them into one of the stronger models of bilingual education.
Developmental bilingual education programs
Developmental bilingual education (DBE) programs (also called maintenance or 
late-exit bilingual education) are much less common than TBE programs in the 
United States in large part because of the lack of federal, state, and local support 
for this model. DBE programs are most often found in elementary schools and 
aim to help students become fully bilingual and biliterate, achieving academically 
through both languages and developing a positive sense of their cultural heritage 
and ethnolinguistic identities.
Most DBE programs begin in kindergarten and continue through the highest 
grade level in the school. Students initially receive about 90% of their content-area 
instruction, including initial literacy instruction, in their L1. Sheltered L2 instruc-
tion increases with each grade level until students receive an equal balance of 
instruction in both languages.
Because of its emphasis on bilingualism and biliteracy, DBE is a much stronger 
model than TBE. Students’ L1 is viewed as a resource, used for instructional 
purposes, and further developed even after students have attained sufficient 
proficiency in the L2 to handle mainstream instruction. Longitudinal research 
conducted by Thomas and Collier (2002) in the United States found that students 
who graduate from well-implemented DBE programs eventually achieve 
educational parity with their English-speaking counterparts. DBE programs are 
empowering to parents because they can be much more involved in their child’s 
education.
Currently in the United States, many schools with DBE programs are facing 
political pressure to push English literacy earlier and faster, particularly in states 
where high-stakes tests are administered only in English (Wright 2007). Many 
school and district administrators worry that if extensive English literacy and 
content instruction in English is delayed to the later elementary grades, students 
will not have the English skills necessary to pass the test. Similar problems arise 
in other countries where important large-scale tests are only administered in an 
official national language. This is not a flaw in the DBE model, but rather a flaw 
in the testing and accountability systems that do not value and fail to accommo-
date strong forms of bilingual education.
Bilingual Education 609
Dual language programs
Dual language programs (also called two-way immersion or dual language 
immersion) are designed for equal numbers of majority- and minority-language 
speakers. These programs aim to develop – for both groups of students – bilin-
gualism and biliteracy, academic achievement in two languages, and cross-cultural 
understanding. Dual language programs typically begin in kindergarten (or 
pre-K) and continue through the elementary school grades, though a growing 
number of these programs can also be found in middle schools and high schools.
L1 and L2 speakers in dual language programs spend most of the day together 
in the same classroom, where they receive content-area instruction in both lan-
guages. Students learn to read and write in both languages, either simultaneously 
or first in one language and later in the other.
The two prototypical dual language models are the 50/50 model and the 90/10 
model, referring to the percentage of time allocated to each language for instruc-
tional purposes. Thus, in the 50/50 model, 50% of the instruction is in the L1 and 
50% is in the L2. In the 90/10 model, 90% of instruction is in the minority language 
for the first year and 10% is in the dominant majority language. As students move 
up in grade level, the amount of instruction in each language balances out to 
50/50. Some schools prefer an 80/20 or 70/30 model, which operate on the same 
principles but include more majority language instruction at the beginning. For 
language minority students, the program functions as a developmental bilingual 
model and for the majority language speakers, the program functions as a bilin-
gual immersion model (discussed in the next section). Traditionally in dual lan-
guage programs (and others) there is a rigid separation of the two languages for 
instructional purposes. This practice has received increasing criticism because it 
does not reflect how languages are used by bilinguals in real life, it does not take 
advantage of the two linguistic systems for social or academic purposes, and it 
does not affirm students’ identities (García 2009; Sayer 2008).
Dual language programs vary considerably in the amount of time spent for 
instruction in each language, which language is used for initial literacy instruc-
tion, and which subjects are taught in which languages. Most dual language 
programs in the United States are for Spanish and English speakers, but there are 
also programs for speakers of Vietnamese, Russian, French, Chinese, Korean, 
Navajo, Arabic, Japanese, and Portuguese. The Center for Applied Linguistics 
maintains a searchable directory of two-way immersion programs in the United 
States (www.cal.org/twi/directory) that provides details of the programs it lists. 
As of May 22, 2012, the CAL directory listed 415 programs in 31 states and 
the District of Columbia. Dual language models have grown in popularity in the 
United States with increases in federal support and the growing demand from 
parents of both English language learners and monolingual English speakers who 
want their children to be bilingual.
The appeal of the dual language model is that theoretically it puts L1 and L2 
speakers on equal footing. When instruction is in theminority language, the 
majority language speakers must rely on their minority language peers, just as 
http://www.cal.org/twi/directory
610 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
the minority language peers must rely on their majority language peers when 
instruction is in the majority language. The minority students’ L1 is viewed as a 
resource to help them learn the L2 and academic content; it is also a resource for 
the majority language speakers learning the native language of their minority 
peers. Dual language programs have successfully moved bilingual education from 
the realm of remedial education into the realm of enrichment education (Perez 
2004). Comparative longitudinal research in the United States demonstrates that 
dual language programs are the most effective form of bilingual education 
(Lindholm-Leary 2001; Perez 2004; Ramirez 1992; Ramirez et al. 1991; Thomas and 
Collier 2002).
Student and community demographics in the United States have led to innova-
tive variations in dual language programs. Whereas the original dual language 
model seeks classroom compositions of equal numbers of ELL and native English 
speakers, Perez (2004) notes, for example, that in more and more communities the 
English speakers are heritage language students who have some proficiency in 
their home language. In other words, a dual language classroom may be com-
posed of all Latino students, half of whom are ELLs and half of whom are 
dominant English speakers with weak and varying levels of proficiency in Spanish. 
Gómez, Freeman, and Freeman (2005) describe a dual language model designed 
for schools in regions where the majority of the students are Latino (e.g., South 
Texas), which follows a unique 50–50 model that divides language of instruction 
by content area as well as by time. In this model there does not need to be an 
equal distribution of ELLs and English dominant students. Such a model could 
easily be replicated (or adapted) for other language groups in the United States 
and around the world where schools are relatively segregated and/or which 
service a large group of language minority students who have varying levels of 
proficiency in the L1 and L2.
Scholars have identified several issues and challenges related to dual language 
programs (Freeman 1998; Palmer and Lynch 2008). Whereas Spanish programs 
are relatively easy to develop in the United States because of the large number of 
Latino ELLs and the availability of Spanish bilingual teachers and materials, it can 
be quite difficult to develop programs in other languages where there are fewer 
students, and teachers and materials are in short supply. Also, while native English 
speakers may be interested in learning high-demand languages such as Spanish, 
Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic, there may be little interest for languages such as 
Vietnamese, Khmer, or Haitian Creole. Another major issue is the fact that, because 
English is the dominant language of the United States, it makes it very difficult 
to value both languages equally within a dual language program and school. 
English, and proficient speakers of English, will always be more privileged. 
Research by de Jong and Howard (2009) reveals that dual language educators 
must carefully address this issue to ensure that ELL students attain the linguistic, 
academic, and cross-cultural benefits that dual language programs claim to offer. 
Valdés (1997) notes that dual language educators need to be careful not to address 
the interests of more vocal middle-class English-speaking constituents over less 
vocal minority constituents in placement or instruction. Valdés also warns that if 
Bilingual Education 611
dual language educators fail to consider language and power relations among 
target populations at school and in the community, ELLs may be exploited for the 
language resource that they provide for white English speakers without actually 
gaining access to equal educational opportunities at school or job opportunities 
in society.
Despite these challenges, scholars have acknowledged the potential of dual 
language programs to encourage friendships and cross-cultural understanding 
between the language majority and minority students, as well as among their 
families (Genesee and Gandara 1999; Lindholm-Leary 1994). This appeal has led 
to efforts to implement dual language programs around the world. For example, 
dual language schools have been established in Israel to bring together Jewish and 
Arab (Palestinian) children and their families (Bekerman and Shhadi 2003; Center 
for Jewish-Arab Education in Israel 2010).
Bilingual immersion programs
Bilingual immersion programs in the United States target dominant English-
speaking students. The goals are for English speakers to become bilingual and 
biliterate, to achieve academically in both English and a target non-English lan-
guage, and to develop cross-cultural understanding. The bilingual immersion 
model was developed in Canada, where native English speakers are immersed 
for content-area instruction in French and vice versa, and extensive research dem-
onstrates the effectiveness of these programs (Genesee 1995, 2006; Lambert and 
Tucker 1972). In the United States, the bilingual immersion model is commonly 
implemented with Hawaiian and Native American students to help them learn 
their ‘native’ language, which they may or may not have learned at home (May 
1999; McCarty 2002; Tamura 1993; Yamauchi, Ceppi, and Lau-Smith 2000). Because 
indigenous languages in the United States are threatened with extinction, bilin-
gual immersion programs are a key component in preserving these languages by 
ensuring they are passed down to the next generation (Crawford 2000b). The 
well-documented success of the Canadian bilingual immersion programs have led 
to replications and variations throughout the world and have been instrumental 
in preserving indigenous and other threatened languages, such as Maori in New 
Zealand (May 1999), Saami in Norway, Quechua in Peru, Catalans in Spain, Gaelic 
in Scotland, Welsh in Wales, Irish in Ireland, and Basque in the Basque Country 
(Baker and Jones, 1999).
Bilingual immersion instruction begins in the target minority language, which 
is typically the language in which the students have the least amount of profi-
ciency. Some programs provide up to 100% of instruction in the target language 
for the first year or two of the program. As the students increase their proficiency 
in the target language, the majority language is slowly introduced and eventually 
both languages are given an equal amount of instructional time. Bilingual immer-
sion programs are most commonly found in elementary schools and last for 
several years, usually up to the highest grade-level of the school, though some 
programs extend through secondary levels of education. One issue of concern is 
612 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
that students will fall behind academically as they struggle with learning – and 
learning through – the target language. Another is that students may lose profi-
ciency in majority language because of its delayed use as a medium of instruction. 
The research from Canada and other immersion programs have shown that stu-
dents eventually achieve at similar or higher levels than non-immersion 
students.
It should be noted that the Canadian-style bilingual immersion programs have 
been misapplied in the United States in the form of (sheltered) English immersion 
– a nonbilingual program. The rationale is that if Canadian students can be 
successfully immersed in a new language, then American ELL students can 
be successfully immersed in all-English instruction. There are two important dif-
ferences, however: (a) Canadian students are native speakers of the dominant 
language of their region (e.g., English or French); and (b) their native language is 
gradually brought in as a medium of instruction. In stark contrast, American ELL 
studentsin English immersion programs are immersed in the dominant societal 
language, and their native language is never brought in as a medium of instruc-
tion. Hence, English immersion is a subtractive program (i.e., takes away or never 
develops the native language), while bilingual immersion is a strong additive 
bilingual education model.
Problem Areas
Bilingual teacher training and availability
A primary challenge to providing bilingual programs is the shortage of qualified 
bilingual teachers. It is often difficult to find individuals who are native proficient 
speakers of the language spoken by language minority students, and who 
are also sufficiently proficient in the national language to the level needed to 
complete teacher training programs and pass required teacher certification exami-
nations. For example, in the district where I had taught in California, as efforts 
were being made to recruit bilingual teachers to create and expand our Khmer 
(Cambodian) bilingual education programs, those candidates who were profi-
cient Khmer speakers tended to face extreme difficulties passing the state’s 
teacher certification exams (Wright 2003). These individuals were mainly those 
who came to the United States in late adolescence and had attended schools in 
Cambodia prior to the war and/or in refugee camps after the war. In contrast, 
those candidates who came to the United States at a younger age obtained most 
of the education through the school district, being placed in English-medium 
programs with no opportunities to develop and maintain their Khmer language. 
Thus, these individuals had less problems obtaining teacher certification, but 
lacked the Khmer language skills necessary to provide effective instruction. The 
irony was apparent – the district had difficulty hiring bilingual teachers because 
it had succeeded in diminishing the bilingual skills of their former students they 
now wished to hire.
Bilingual Education 613
University-based bilingual teacher training programs in the United States typi-
cally only serve Spanish speakers. Many of these programs also find they need 
to provide assistance to teacher candidates to either improve their English, or to 
improve their Spanish. In many cases, students need help to develop both, espe-
cially for students who attended subtractive K-12 programs that failed to help 
students develop high levels of proficiency in Standard English. Similar chal-
lenges in certifying bilingual teachers occur throughout the world. In developing 
nations beginning to offer bilingual education programs, it can be particularly 
challenging to identify members of ethnic minority groups who have sufficient 
proficiency in the national language, particularly when such groups have previ-
ously been excluded from or discriminated against in the educational system. 
And like in the United States, few native speakers of the dominant national 
language study ethnic minority languages, and even fewer obtain the proficiency 
needed to teach in these languages. These challenges are not impossible to over-
come, but require commitment to creative strategies and specialized training 
programs.
Once qualified teacher candidates are identified, an additional challenge is 
the lack of clear criteria and standards for the training of bilingual teachers. In the 
United States for example, each state creates its own rules and regulations 
for teacher training and certification. Not all states have articulated standards for 
bilingual teachers. For those that do have standards, they vary greatly in terms of 
content, amount of required hours of training, and the level of proficiency required 
in the non-English language. In addition, most states that have bilingual teacher 
certification only have it in Spanish. While California stands out by offering bilin-
gual certification in 16 of the most commonly spoken languages other than 
English,3 ELL students in the United States come from over 100 different language 
backgrounds. Similar challenges are found in countries around the world where 
hundreds of languages may be spoken by students.
Emphasis on weak forms of bilingual education
As noted earlier, despite research showing the effectiveness of bilingual education, 
decisions about educational language policy are usually driven by politics and are 
rooted in efforts of the dominant group to protect their power. Thus, weak forms 
of bilingual education that make minimal or temporary use of students’ lan-
guages, and which transition them quickly into mainstream classrooms usually 
garner the most governmental support. Weak programs are often viewed as reme-
dial programs to help students overcome their lack of proficiency in the dominant 
societal language. As these programs aim for assimilation and typically result in 
students who are relatively monolingual in the societal language upon high school 
graduation, they may be less threatening to leaders and other members of the 
dominant group. Hence, in the United States, there has been some support of 
transitional bilingual education (TBE) programs, but much less support for devel-
opmental (maintenance) bilingual education. An exception to this pattern is the 
growing support for dual language instruction. In this case, however, the strong 
614 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
support is most often due to the fact that they equally benefit the more powerful 
language majority students and their families. There are even some efforts to 
avoid calling dual language programs ‘bilingual programs’ to distance them from 
the stigmatized label.
While UNESCO and other international education organizations advocate for 
strong models of bilingual education, in many developing countries aiming to 
extend educational access to language minority students, the TBE model appeals 
to government and educational leaders. Even then, it often takes much effort to 
convince policy makers to start and support even weak forms of bilingual educa-
tion. Middleborg (2005) for example, in describing the development of bilingual 
education in Cambodia, notes some of the misconceptions and fears that political 
leaders often have about bilingual education: (a) it will lead to demands for 
autonomy by ethnic minority groups; (b) it will lead to political instability in the 
border areas; (c) the national language is more important than mother tongues; 
and (d) a new script will lead to tainting of the national language. Middleborg 
notes that while several Southeast Asian countries that have passed legislation 
supportive of bilingual education, in practice only the weakest of forms may 
be seen:
In many countries, an evident mismatch in policy and practice exists, most notably 
in Indonesia, Myanmar and Viet Nam. In Viet Nam, for example, government offi-
cials often talk about bilingual education that includes minority languages. Yet, in 
fact, the practice is more like using local language orally in classrooms or teaching 
local languages as subjects with a fairly obvious goal of assimilating minority stu-
dents into the majority population (p. 39).
Middleborg notes that these weak programs may at least be viewed as what 
Benson (2003) has called ‘foot-in-the-door strategies,’ that can pave the way 
towards true (stronger) bilingual education programs.
The issue of orthography can especially bring about fears from political leaders. 
In Cambodia for example, orthographies needed to be created in several ethnic 
minority languages which lacked them (Gregerson 2009). The use of the modern 
Khmer script was most acceptable to Cambodia’s policy makers; when the script 
was short six letters to adequately represent the sounds of one of the languages, 
an official governmental committee was appointed and identified six letters from 
ancient (Angkorian period) Khmer to fill the gap. Odd decisions have been made 
in the name of nationalism, however, when a national language script has been 
developed for an ethnic minoritylanguage that already has a standardized writing 
system in a different script (e.g., in a neighboring country). While this may miti-
gate policy makers’ fears about the threat to the national language and script, it 
effectively prevents students from any meaningful access to native language texts. 
Such a move clearly indicates that the purpose of bilingual programs using these 
contrived scripts with little utility outside the classroom is to move students as 
quickly as possible away from their native languages and into national language 
instruction.
Bilingual Education 615
Anti-bilingual education state voter initiatives in the 
United States
Even weak forms of bilingual education have come under attack in the United 
States as a new wave of restricted-oriented policies have taken hold, especially in 
states with changing demographics and heated debates over immigration and 
the education of English language learners. The English for the Children voter 
initiatives, sponsored by a wealthy California businessman with strong political 
aspirations, declared that ‘all children shall be placed in English language class-
rooms’ and that ELLs ‘shall be educated through sheltered English immersion 
during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year’ 
(Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §15-752). The initiatives stipulated that ‘books 
and instructional materials are in English and all reading, writing, and subject 
matter are taught in English’ and that ‘no subject matter shall be taught in any 
language other than English, and children in this program learn to read and write 
solely in English’ (A.R.S. §15-751).
Academic research, along with the voices of experts, bilingual educators and 
bilingual students and their families were largely ignored in the campaigns in 
California (Proposition 227, 1998), Arizona (Proposition 203, 2000), and Massachu-
setts (Question 2, 2002), while proponents succeeded in disseminating misleading 
information and data about bilingual education, such as false claims that bilingual 
education had a 95% failure rate (Crawford 1997; Thompson et al. 2002; Wright 
2005b). Proponents of the initiatives argued that bilingual education programs 
were a violation of students’ rights to learn English, thus substantially misrepre-
senting the essence of bilingual programs. However, these voter initiatives mainly 
played to the ideologies and fears of the majority of the voting public about immi-
grants and their use of non-English languages in American society (Crawford 
2000a; Gandara and Hopkins 2010).
In an interesting twist, the English-for-the-Children initiative was rejected by 
voters in Colorado (Amendment 31) in 2002. However, the successful opposition 
to the initiative was not based on a defense of bilingual education or concerns 
about the rights of ELL students, but rather on a theme of ‘Chaos in the Classroom’ 
which played off the fears of the majority of the voting public (Crawford 2008). 
Voters were warned that if the initiative was passed, limited-English-speaking 
immigrant students would be placed in regular mainstream classrooms alongside 
Anglo children and thus lower the quality of education for all students. Crawford 
(2008) bluntly states, opponents used ‘a new type of diversionary approach, which 
could be summarized as: If you can’t beat racism, then try to exploit it’ (p. 92; empha-
sis in the original). (See Escamilla et al. 2003 for an alternative view of the succesful 
opposition campaign.)
While successful passage of the initiatives in California, Arizona, and Massa-
chusetts resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of bilingual programs, 
many programs have survived due to the law’s ambiguous language and 
some allowances for waivers from the law. Dual language programs in particular 
616 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
continue to be offered in these states, and were even given blanket exclusion from 
the Massachusetts law. The defeat of Amendment 31 was made possible by a very 
generous donation to the opposition campaign from a multi-billionaire whose 
young daughter was in a Colorado dual language program.
De-emphasis in U.S. federal education policy
Another problem area in the United States has been the de-emphasis of bilingual 
education in federal education policy. The Title VII Bilingual Education Act (BEA) 
came to an end in 2001 when it was excluded from the re-authorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the form of No Child Left Behind 
(NCLB). The BEA was replaced with Title III ‘Language Instruction for Limited 
English Proficient and Immigrant Students.’ The BEA provided specific funds for 
competitive grants to support bilingual education programs. Title III, however, 
provides block grants to states to fund generic ‘language instruction education 
programs.’ The emphasis is on students attaining English proficiency and meeting 
challenging academic content and achievement standards. However, the law 
states that these programs:
may make instructional use of both English and a child’s native language to enable 
the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation 
of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating 
children to become proficient in English and a second language (NCLB, Sec. 3301(8)).
Thus, NCLB does make allowances for bilingual education programs, but 
avoids calling them by name. Essentially, NCLB leaves it up to each state whether 
or not they will use Title III funds to support bilingual programs. Also absent from 
NCLB is the list of personal and societal benefits of bilingualism and bilingual 
education that had appeared previously in federal education law (Wright 2005a).
Assessment and accountability policies discourage 
bilingual education
Another problem area is that U.S. federal and state high-stakes testing and account-
ability policies typically drive English-only instruction (Wright 2007). NCLB 
makes some allowances for content-area testing of ELL students in their native 
language for a few years, but only to the ‘extent practicable.’ Few states have 
found it practicable to do so; the few states that do usually only offer such tests 
in Spanish. Thus, most ELLs in the United States are subjected to English-only 
tests and are held to the same expectations as English-proficient students. As the 
results of these tests are used for high-stakes accountability purposes, schools and 
teachers are under immense pressure to prepare students to do well on them. 
Many schools rationalize that if the tests are only available in English, then it is 
imperative that students are only taught in English. Alternatively and equally 
problematic, some researchers have observed that in states where Spanish 
language tests are available, bilingual teachers may feel pressure to only teach 
students in Spanish, thus corrupting the nature of bilingual programs by prevent-
Bilingual Education 617
ing students from receiving essential English as a second language (ESL) and 
sheltered English content-area instruction (Palmer and Lynch 2008). NCLB’s 
high-stakes testing and accountability policies are also making it very difficult for 
bilingual immersion programs for Native Americans to operate (Little and McCarty 
2006). These same principles apply in countries around the world that may offer 
bilingual programs, but important exams for promotion, graduation, or college 
admission are only in the dominant national language.
Challenges of effectiveness research
The effectiveness research on bilingual education reviewed above makes a strong 
case for bilingual education. However, as the authors of these reviews have 
attested, conducting such research is a challenge given that there is great inconsist-
ency in how program models for ELL students are labeled. Programs that are 
labeled as bilingual education may in fact be English-medium programs with 
minimalprimary language support, and programs labeled as ESL or sheltered 
English immersion may in fact provide some L1 content-area instruction. 
Oftentimes, program models are not implemented as neatly as the descriptions 
provided above suggest. And the quality of programs models can vary greatly 
across classrooms and schools. Indeed, language of instruction is but one of many 
factors contributing to the quality (or lack thereof) in the education of language 
minority students. Another problem is that testing instruments used in such com-
parisons measure only a sample of a narrow range of skills, and may in fact 
provide an invalid measure of students’ abilities, or be invalid for the purposes 
of comparing programs. Thus, quantitative comparisons across program types can 
be extremely problematic.
Another issue, as Baker (2008) has observed, is that nearly all the research on 
the effectiveness of bilingual education has come out of Canada in terms of the 
bilingual immersion model, and the United States in terms of the effectiveness of 
different models of bilingual education vs. English-medium instruction. North 
American bilingual program models are exported around the world based on this 
highly influential research, yet ‘such research is not easily generalizable across 
oceans and traditions,’ and ‘there is a paucity of research not conducted in the 
United States to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of different styles of bilin-
gual education’ (p. 874). Nonetheless, there is research providing rich descriptions 
of bilingual education programs and critiques of language education policies in 
countries and regions around the world, including Europe (Beardsmore 1993), 
China (Feng 2007), Southeast Asia (Lin and Man 2009), India (Pattanayak 1990), 
and South America (de Mejía 2005), to name a few.
Directions for Future Work
Despite its long history and a strong research base, much work remains to be done 
in the field of bilingual education. I conclude this chapter with brief comments on 
some of the directions needed for future work. First, there is a need to establish 
618 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and its Effects
national and international standards for the training and certification of bilingual 
teachers. A model may be found in the standards for training ESL teachers 
established by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (2003). Unfor-
tunately, the national leadership of the bilingual education field in the United 
States has become increasingly divided over the past decade, greatly weakening 
the standing and influence of national bilingual education professional associa-
tions. A reunification of the field is needed so this important work can be 
undertaken.
Greater emphasis on and support for strong forms of bilingual education is 
greatly needed. Ironically, while bilingual education research and bilingual 
program models developed in North America have been extremely influential 
around the world, the current trends in the United States to ignore its own research 
and push for weak forms of bilingual education or restrict them altogether are 
also receiving wide international attention (Baker 2008). At the time of this writing, 
the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act is overdue for re-authorization. 
With bipartisan recognition of many of the problems associated with NCLB, there 
is a real opportunity to restore federal encouragement and direct financial support 
of strong forms of bilingual education. Such a restoration would have a great 
international impact. In addition, future work is needed to establish assessment 
and accountability policies that recognize and reward schools that are successful 
in developing student bilingualism and biliteracy.
There continues to be a great need to conduct research and document the effec-
tiveness of various forms of bilingual education and other forms of education for 
language minority students. In light of the challenges synthesizing past research, 
future research must be well designed, and provide clear descriptions of the 
program models being implemented and the students being served. It is impera-
tive that more research of this type be conducted outside of the United States. 
Indeed, particularly due to the current ideological debates and restrictions on 
bilingual education, policy makers and educators in the United States have much 
to learn about the implementation and effectiveness of bilingual education in 
other countries. More importantly, other countries need rigorous research to deter-
mine if the bilingual programs they are implementing are adequately meeting the 
linguistic, academic, and cultural needs of students.
The research syntheses conducted by the National Literacy Panel (NLP) and 
the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) high-
lighted the fact that there is much we do not know about providing effective 
bilingual instruction. For example, there is a dearth of research that can guide 
effective oral language development in bilingual classrooms. Likewise, we still 
have much to learn about the nature of bilingualism, second-language acquisition, 
the nature of transfer between L1 and L2, the levels of language proficiency 
needed to complete various academic tasks in different content areas, and how to 
assess the language proficiency and academic achievement of bilingual students 
in a valid and reliable manner. Recent research is also calling into question the 
typical rigid separation of languages that have long been advocated for in U.S. 
models of bilingual education, noting such separation is inconsistent with the 
Bilingual Education 619
ways bilinguals code-switch or translanguage in real life as they draw upon all of 
their linguistic resources for effective communication (García 2009; Sayer 2008). 
Thus, extensive research must be conducted on these and many other issues that 
can inform more effective models of bilingual education.
Finally, and in conclusion, I wish to echo the argument made by Ofelia García 
(2009), that as work in this field continues to move forward, we must recognize 
that ‘bilingual education is the only way to educate children in the twenty-first 
century’ (p. 5). As García explains:
One of the biggest changes in the globalized community of the twenty-first century 
is the blurring of territory that was clearly demarcated by language and culture. 
Although many territories had only given the appearance of being homogenous, they 
provided a context, even if imagined, to enforce monolingual schooling. In the 
twenty-first century, however, we are aware of the linguistic complexity of the world 
in which monolingual schooling seems utterly inappropriate. Language differences 
are seen as a resource, and bilingual education, in all its complexity and forms, seems 
to be the only way to educate as the world moves forward (p. 16).
NOTES
1 For a focus on bilingual education for language majority students, see Genesee (2006), in the first 
edition of this handbook.
2 Two of the 13 researchers (Diane August and Fred Genesee) were also members of the National 
Literacy Panel, and another (Donna Christian) was a ‘Senior Advisor’ to the National Literacy 
Panel.
3 The California Subject Examinations for Teachers (CSET) includes exams for the following 
languages other than English that may be used for bilingual authorization: Arabic, Armenian, 
Cantonese, Farsi, Filipino, French, German, Hmong, Japanese, Korean, Khmer, Mandarin, Punjabi, 
Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
REFERENCES
August, Diane and Shanahan, Timothy (eds.) 
(2006a). Developing Literacy in Second-
Language Learners: Report of the National 
Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children 
and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
August, Diane and Shanahan, Timothy (eds.) 
(2006b). Executive Summary – Developing 
Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of 
the National Literacy Panel on Language-
Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah,