Contested Policy: The Rise and Fall of Federal Bilingual Education in the United States, 1960-2001

3. RETRENCHMENT AND REDEFINITION, 1980–1988

54 CHAPTER 3 RETRENCHMENT AND REDEFINITION, 1980–1988 INTRODUCTION During the 1980s, organized opposition to bilingual education policy grew significantly. Politicians, educators, scholars, and parent groups began to criticize bilingual education policies and programs at all levels of government and to call for their curtailment. Several specific factors were responsible for the growth of this opposition . Among the specific factors were the changes in policy over time, the increased federal support of bilingual education methods, growing minority empowerment, and misunderstandings and ignorance of pedagogical methods concerning first and second language learning among language majority and minority students in the United States. A variety of underlying factors also contributed to the emergence of organized opposition to bilingual education in this decade. One of these was the rise of conservatism in American life in general and the control by the Republican Party of the executive branch of the federal government in particular. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, a one-time film actor, former California governor, and staunch Republican, won by a landslide. Although he received 50.7% of the popular vote, he won 489 out of 538 electoral votes to become president of the United States. The election of Reagan to office initiated a significant shift in the federal government’s support for bilingual education.1 A primary objective of his administration was to limit the role of the federal government.2 In keeping with this R E T R E N C H M E N T A N D R E D E F I N I T I O N , 1 9 8 0 – 1 9 8 8 5 5 philosophy, Reagan and his allies halted the growth of bilingual education and significantly modified this policy and its implementation. Other factors assisted opponents in reversing bilingual education advances, including the loss of nerve by liberal politicians to fight for their own ideals, the restlessness of the lay public over minority rights, domestic and international economic conditions, the rapid growth and changing nature of immigration, especially from non-European countries , the fragmentation of the left and progressive organizations, the growing presence and influence of non-English speaking groups on American culture, and the emergence of the U.S. English-only movement . This latter movement developed more stringent criticisms of the effectiveness of bilingual education, of the federal role, and of the need for native language instruction in bilingual programs. It also raised questions and concerns about the costs for establishing these programs , and about the number of children needing and being served by them.3 For the most part, those in opposition to this policy favored assimilation , English-only public policies, the limited participation of ethnic minorities in public policy, and compensatory school reforms, that is, reforms aimed specifically at targeted groups of individuals requiring special services. Many of them wanted to reverse the gains made by the supporters of bilingual education and halt the growth of bilingual education throughout the country. More specifically, they wanted to decrease or eliminate the use of non-English languages in public education and improve the academic achievement of low-income, limited-Englishspeaking children through the teaching of English only. Others wanted to eliminate the mandatory aspects of this policy and the federal preference for bilingual education or to promote Americanization instead of cultural pluralism in the schools. Although contested, two major strategies were pursued by the opponents : an ideological one aimed at attacking the empirical basis of bilingual education and a political one of repealing or modifying federal bilingual education. 5 6 C O N T E S T E D P O L I C Y INCREASING ATTACKS AGAINST BILINGUAL EDUCATION The first major strategy raised questions about the goals, effectiveness, and consequences of federal bilingual education. Its emphasis was on challenging the need for sustained native language instruction. The primary attack against bilingual education from the beginning was aimed at questioning its effectiveness. During the late 1970s, opponents began to argue that bilingual education was not effective in teaching limitedEnglish -proficient (LEP) children English or in improving their academic achievement. Opponents also called for the enactment of a new policy that would consider alternatives to primary language instruction, especially English Immersion and English as a Second Language (ESL) approaches.4 This emerging opposition was limited to a few individuals; it was not yet fully organized. Serious opposition to bilingual education originated in 1981 with the appearance of several reports issued...