Bilingual education accelerates English language development

Sent to the New York Times, Oct. 17, 2016

Missing from the Times' otherwise informative article about bilingual education in California ("Californians, Having Curbed Bilingual Education, May Now Expand It," Oct. 17) is a response to Ron Unz' serious accusation. Unz correctly emphasized the importance of English but made the false claim that bilingual education prevents English language development.

The opposite is true:  Study after study has shown that children in bilingual programs do better in English reading than similar students in all-English “immersion” programs.

In the most recent analysis, Researchers Grace and David McField examined all available studies comparing bilingual education and English immersion. They concluded that when both program quality and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably larger than previously reported.

Bilingual programs, when set up and evaluated correctly, do not prevent the acquisition of English, they accelerate it.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/californians-having-curbed-bilingual-education-may-now-expand-it.html?_r=0

Sources:

Most recent analysis: McField, G. and McField, D. (2014).  "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.

Previous meta-analyses of bilingual education research (all conclude that bilingual education is more effective than English immersion)
Greene, J. (1999). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21 (2,3): 103-122.
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy 19(4): 572-594.
Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research of reading instruction for English language learners, Review of Educational Research 75(2): 247-284.
Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research 55(3): 269-317.

What does the research say about dropouts and bilingual education?

Sent to the San Diego Union-Tribune Oct. 14 2016

The Union-Tribune claims that dismantling bilingual education caused the number of dropouts among Hispanic students to decline ("Graduation gains, history require rejection of Prop. 58," October 13).
Research does not show that language is the main factor in predicting dropout rates. Many factors contribute to dropping out, including factors related to  poverty: Young people have to work to help their families.
Even if English mastery were the main factor in school completion, bilingual education can not be the problem.  Research consistently shows that bilingual education is good for English development: Scientific studies have consistently shown that students in bilingual programs outperform comparison students in all-English programs on tests of English reading.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Original article: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-no-prop-58-english-instruction-20161012-story.html

Blended Boondoggle

Sent to Sky Delta (Delta Airlines Magazine)

I was astonished to read that higher education in the USA paid an estimated $6.6 billion to support blended learning  ("Blended Learning: The Right Mix," Oct, 2016).

That's a lot of money for an approach with little hard research support: Reviews of research that compares of blended learning and face-to-face classes show only a modest advantage for blended learning, with most studies showing no difference. Even this small advantage may be due to the fact that blended learning approaches involve more learning time.

The future of technology in education is bright, but a policy that is more educationally justified as well as more financially prudent is the gradual introduction of technology. We should start with inexpensive and obvious options, initiated by experienced professionals (teachers). The approaches should be confirmed by solid research before they are widely implemented.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Sources:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2010. www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.
Davis, M. 2015. Blended Learning Research: The Seven Studies You Need to Know.  Education Week. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2015/04/blended_learning_research_the.html

Confusion about language acquisition and bilingual education

Confusion about language acquisition and bilingual education
Sent to Education Week, October 11.

Harmeet Dhillon of the California Republican Party claims that it is "common sense" that "the faster you're required to learn the mainstream language, the better off you are."  (“Bilingual education poised for a comeback in California schools, “ Oct 11). Not true. We do not acquire language because we are forced to. We acquire language when we understand what we hear and read in that language, that is, when we get "comprehensible input." 
When children get quality education in their first language, they learn more subject matter. This knowledge helps make the English they hear more comprehensible, which results in more acquisition of English.
Bilingual programs are not "all Spanish."  Students take English as a second language classes from the first day of school, and subject matter is taught in English as soon as it can be made comprehensible.
Research consistently shows that students in quality bilingual programs outperform students with similar backgrounds on tests of English reading.  In the most recent analysis, Professors Grace and David McField found that when both program quality and research quality are considered, the superiority of bilingual education was considerably larger than previously reported.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/10/12/bilingual-education-poised-for-a-comeback-in.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news1

some sources:
Crawford, J. and Krashen, S. 2015. English Learners in American Classrooms: 101 Questions, 101 Answers. Portland: DiversityLearningK12

McField, G. and McField, D. 2014. The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses. In Grace McField (Ed.) 2014. The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.

Sustained Silent Reading: The effects are substantial, it works, and it leads to more reading. A response to Shanahan (2016).

Stephen Krashen

Shanahan (2016) makes three unsubstantiated claims about sustained silent reading (SSR).

A "tiny" effect?

Shanahan states that "the effects of DEAR, SSR, SQUIRT or any of the other 'independent reading time' schemes are tiny when it comes to reading achievement."

Shanahan does not cite any sources for this claim. Several meta-analyses of studies done with second language acquirers, however, show that effect sizes for SSR are quite respectable and the results for readers of different ages are similar.  Table 1 summarizes these studies. (Several individual studies are included in more than one meta-analysis, but the overlap is not complete.)

Table 1: Meta-analysis of the effect of Sustained Silent Reading

	Effect sizes
Study	vocab(N)	R.C. (N)
Krashen (2007)		.87 (15)
Nakanishi (2014)	.18 (9)	.68 (15)
Jeon & Day (2016)	.47 (17)	.54 (46)

N = number of studies

In Tse, Xiao, Ko, Lam, Hui, and Ng (2016), fourth grade children in Taiwan and Hong Kong who reported doing more independent reading in their first language in school scored higher on the PIRLS 2006 reading test, controlling for students' reading attitude, parents' reading attitude, home education resources, the amount of outside schol informational reading done, and the amount of in-class reading aloud done by students.

Students indicated how much SSR they were doing on a four point scale where 1 = none at all and 4 = every day or nearly every day. The results predict that a school moving from doing no SSR to an every day or nearly every day program will experience a PIRLS gain of 20 points for Hong Kong schools and 45 ponts for Taiwan schools, which is substantial.

The "failure" of SSR?

Shanahan also states "As it became obvious and research accumulated showing the lack of learning from unaccountable reading (e.g., DEAR, SSR) ...".

The evidence cited above confirms that SSR works, as do many other studies (Krashen, 2004, 2005, 2011).

Does SSR promote a reading habit?

Shanahan also claims that "research doesn’t provide us with methods proven to increase the likelihood kids will become lifelong readers. But it does give us insights into what does motivate people. SSR and DEAR do not match well with those insights."

Studies have confirmed that students who have participated in SSR programs read more on their own than those who have not, both immediately after the program ends (Pilgreen and Krashen, 1993) as well as years later (Greaney and Clarke, 1975).

McKool (2007) interviewed fifth graders who were clearly "avid readers." Avid readers ... reported that voluntary reading was promoted in their classes through the practice of Sustained Silent Reading ... they felt ... that it was critical for teachers to allow them to read whatever they wanted to read. When avid readers were asked to read required materials during this time, they frequently admitted that 'This makes me not want to read.'" (p. 125).

The research does not support Shanahan's claims.  

Sources

Jeon, E-Y., and Day, R. (2016).  The effectiveness of ER on reading proficiency: A meta-analysis. Reading in a Foreign Language 28(2): 246-265.

Greaney, V., and M. Clarke, M. (1973). A longitudinal study of the effects of two reading methods on leisure-time reading habits. In Reading: What of the future? ed. D. Moyle. London: United Kingdom Reading Association. Pp. 107-114.

Pilgreen, J. and Krashen, S. (1993). Sustained silent reading with English as a second language high school students: Impact on reading comprehension, reading frequency, and reading enjoyment. School Library Media Quarterly 22: 21-23.

Krashen, S. (2004). The Power of Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, and Westport, CONN: Libraries Unlimited (second edition).

Krashen, S. (2005) Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Report is (Still) Wrong Phi Delta Kappan 86(6): 444-447.

Krashen, S. (2007). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language by adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 3 (2): 23-29.

Krashen, S. (2011). Free Voluntary Reading. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Nakanishi, T. (2014). A meta-analysis of extensive reading research. TESOL Quarterly 49(1): 6-37.

McKool, S. 2007. Factors that influence the decision to read: An investigation of fifth grade students' out-of-school reading habits.  Reading Improvement 44(3): 111-131.

Shanahan, T. 2016). Does independent reading time during the school day create lifelong readers? http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/2016/10/does-independent-reading-time-during.html?m=1

Tse, S. K., Xiao, X. Y., Ko, H. W., Lam, J. W. I., Hui, S. Y., & Ng, H. W. (2016). Do reading practices make a difference? The analysis of PIRLS data for Hong Kong and Taiwan fourth-grade students. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 46(3).

Prop 58 will improve English proficiency

Published in the Mercury News, October 12, 2016
Re: Bilingual rules rewrite deserves no vote (Oct 7)

The Mercury News recommends voting against Prop. 58 because "English proficiency has to be paramount for success in this country," noting that after Proposition 227 passed, English proficiency tripled ("Bilingual rules rewrite deserves no vote, “ Oct 7)
English learners' Stanford 9 test scores did in fact increase after 227 passed, but so did scores for all students in California. A new version of the test was introduced the year before 227 was passed. Scores increased each year as students and teachers became more familiar with the test, a well-documented pattern when new standardized tests are introduced.  227 does not deserve the credit for this increase.
Careful scientific studies have shown no obvious improvement in English language development resulting from the passage of Prop. 227. Also, controlled studies have consistently shown that students in bilingual programs outperform comparison students in all-English programs on tests of English reading.
English proficiency is paramount for success. For this reason, we should support Proposition 58.

Stephen Krashen

Original article:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/07/editorial-bilingual-rules-rewrite-deserves-no-vote/

Sources:
No obvious improvement: Jepsen, C. and de Alth, S. 2005. English learners in California schools. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California; Parrish, T. 2006. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K–12: Year 5 Report. American Institutes for Research and WestEd.

Controlled studies: Most recent analysis - McField, G. and McField, D. 2014.  "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.

Well designed bilingual programs pay off.

Published in the Mercury News, October 2, 2016
California’s Prop 58 would restore bilingual education. A recent poll said that there was support for 58, but respondents were not enthusiastic about 58 after reading one of eight summaries of the measure.
The summaries said that we should allow students to take classes in the native language to keep their culture and language, or because bilingualism will help students eventually “get good jobs.”  True, but there is another reason to allow instruction using the first language: It results in better English.
The summaries also said that English-only is the way to “preserve our common American culture and language,” and “English is necessary.”  This assumes that the only way to acquire English is through English-only programs, which is false.
How would people react if they knew that students in well designed bilingual programs consistently outperform similar students in all-English programs on tests of English? That’s exactly what the research says.
Stephen Krashen

Professor Emeritus

University of Southern California
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/30/oct-2-readers-letters-congress-opens-doors-to-lawsuits-with-veto-override/