Identifying
Fallacious Arguments
in the Bilingual Education Debate
Jill
Kerper Mora
San Diego State University
Click
here for a PPT slide show on the topic of
Critical Thinking in the Bilingual Education Debate
In today's society we encounter great resistance to change. We are subjected to ideologies and arguments for maintaining the status quo. Adherence to traditional beliefs and values is seen as the only way to protect against the inevitable loss of power and control that is inherent in a culturally and linguistically diverse society. Consequently, many people react with fear to perceived threats to their status and privilege in society.
Galileo's astronomical treatise, the Dialogue of the Two Chief Systems of the World was published in 1632. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around was so threatening to scientists, intellectuals and powerful church leaders that Galileo's writings were banned until 1835. It took two centuries for society to make the paradigm shift.
We do not anticipate that acceptance of a multicultural society governed by democratic principles will take that long. However, the reality is that the "cause" of English-only has served a short-term purpose for demagogues and political leaders. We must continue to expose propaganda and false ideologies through critical analysis and activism. I offer this analysis of the arguments and fallacies in the bilingual education debate as a guide to critical thinking as a basis for informed advocacy for sound public policy for educating language minority students.
Creative Problem Solving
There can be no advances in civilization without creative problem solving. Our ability to solve problems creatively depends on our willingness to grapple with complexity and think critically about relationships of power and dominance within society.
"Creative Problem Solving is the discipline of conceptualizing and framing problems so as to permit the broadest possible array of solutions. A creative problem solver systematically seeks many points of view, engaging in multi-cause investigation and analysis. Problems are examined for their relational implications at all levels: individual, institutional, and societal. Creative Problem Solving avoids simplistic, “silver bullet” solutions. Instead it seeks to develop solution systems based upon what is learned about a problem, rather than what is habitually done. It is a caring approach that seeks transformative solutions to redefine problems, expand resources and facilitate enhanced relationships among the parties."
Professor Janeen Kerper
California Western School of LawClick here for a road map to the bilingual education controversy. This web page provides an overview of the questions educators and concerned citizens may have about bilingual education and policies for educating language minority students.
| Fallacy |
Example
of Fallacious Arguments |
Information
or Counter-argument |
|
Half-truth Faulty
Comparison False
Analogy
|
Early
20th century immigrants learned English without the benefit of
bilingual education. Therefore, today's immigrants do not need bilingual
programs to succeed.
My great-grandfather who was an immigrant from [a European country] made it in American without the schools teaching him in his native language, so why should today’s immigrants demand “special treatment”? It has always been the role of public schools to Americanize immigrants by requiring them to learn English.
|
High
dropout rates also existed then. Not all immigrants were successful. Many
returned to their homeland because they could not succeed in America,
therefore resulting in a "self-selection" process. An agricultural and industrial economy such as we had in the early 20th century required a different type and level of education and skills. than today's information and technology businesses. De
facto bilingual education was available in many immigrant communities that
set up after-school and "Saturday school" programs to teach
children in their native language and preserve their cultural
heritage. Patterns of immigration in California today are different from immigration in the early 20th century. Unlike earlier immigrants, many immigrants today maintain close economic and familial ties with their homeland. Therefore, they tend to preserve their heritage language and culture and value their bilingualism as a sentimental and economic resource. Realistically, the role of public education in fostering, or preventing, major social and economic changes in the broader society is limited. |
|
Assuming
a Causal Relationship Post
Hoc
|
Increases
in test scores in California for English language learners are due to
“strict enforcement” of Proposition 227.
|
Test
scores rose for all students. Standardized achievement test scores rose among students in bilingual
programs as well as immersion programs. Prior to passage of 227, 70% were
already in English immersion or mainstream classrooms where they
received no L1 instruction. Post-227
only 18% of ELL changed
from bilingual programs to structured English immersion. |
| Black-and-white Thinking |
It
is important to learn English to succeed in American society. Students in
bilingual education do not learn English rapidly or well. Therefore, we
must eliminate bilingual education.
|
There
is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that bilingual education retards
English learning or that bilingual individuals cannot become fully
proficient in English. Bilingualism provides many cognitive, social, and
academic advantages. |
| Slippery
Slope |
We
must have English as a common language to preserve our national unity.
Giving another language equal status in a public institution like the
schools will lead to ethnic separatism and conflict. Therefore, we must
send the message that immigrants must learn English and abandon the use of
their native language. We must fight bilingual education, multiculturalism and ethnic-separatism policies.
|
English
is not a threatened language. 97% of all residents of the USA speak
English. Many second-generation American- born immigrants are bilingual.
However, most descendents of immigrants become monolingual English
speakers by the third generation.
In many cases, speakers of other languages have little or no
incentive to give up the use of their native language because of
economic, cultural and sentimental realities. For example, 64% of all
Hispanic households are equally comfortable using English and Spanish. |
| Straw Man | Bilingual
education theory says that ELL must study Spanish for 5 to 7 years before
they can be taught English. These “Spanish-only” bilingual programs
are neither “bilingual” nor “education.”
|
The
vast majority of bilingual education programs are transitional. English as
a second language and English literacy teaching begin on day one of the
programs. By second grade, instruction is usually half and half in
Spanish/English. The average duration of students’ enrollment in
bilingual education is 3 years. 80% of students who began in kindergarten
in a well-implemented
bilingual program will be reclassified as fluent English
proficient by grades 4-6. |
|
Red
Herring Scapegoating
|
Dropout
rates for Latino students are excessively high. Bilingual education has
had 30 years to correct this problem, but it has failed. Therefore, we
should “end the experiment” and return to English only instruction.
|
Only
15% of all Latino students are likely to have ever been enrolled in a
bilingual program. Since the average enrollment is 3 years, bilingual
education accounts for a small percentage (3-5%) of the total schooling
experience of the Latino student population. There are many factors that
cause students to drop out of school. Statistics show that language
proficiency accounts for only 30% of variability in dropout rates among
Latino youth. Well-implemented bilingual programs have been shown to
contribute to LOWER dropout rates among Latino students. |
|
Ad
Hominem Division Prejudice
Formation
|
Bilingual
educators only defend bilingual education because they want to keep their
jobs. They are “ethnic separatists” who do not represent the best
interests of their communities. Most Latinos do not support
bilingual education.
|
Bilingual
teachers are in demand because of their high level of expertise in
language education and their ability to communicate with students and
their parents in their own language. Bilingual teachers are role models of
acculturation and success in a multicultural society. Although Latino
voters do not have a singular view about the value of bilingual education,
voter exit polls show that 63% of Latino voters rejected Proposition 227.
A few Latinos who oppose bilingual education do not speak for the entire
Latino community, which is capable of representing its own best interests
in the policy arena. |
|
Misapplied
or Incomplete Statistics Unstated Assumptions
|
The
redesignation or exit rate for limited English proficient students to full
English proficiency before Proposition 227 was only 6% per year. Therefore, bilingual education
has a 94% failure rate.
|
Unstated
assumptions in this argument are 1) the exit rate should be 100% per year, 2) this
statistic represents the number of students who exit from bilingual
programs, and 3) the exit rate is an indicator of fluency in English.
The facts are
that 1) an exit rate of around 14% would be close to perfection 2) The
redesignation statistic includes ELL who meet criteria from all types of programs, including
immersion and mainstream, and 3) the criteria for redesignation include
academic performance assessments as well as language proficiency. |
|
Non-expert
Testimony Appeal
to Principle
|
Young
children can learn a new language in a year or less if they are heavily
exposed to the language. They soak up English “like a sponge.” Once
they speak enough English to understand the teacher, they can succeed in a
mainstream classroom. |
This
argument ignores
the different components of language and literacy that students must
master, including listening, speaking, reading and writing. Many research
studies involving hundreds of thousands of ELL have provided a realistic
picture of the language learning and literacy development curve. It takes
from 3-5 years for students to develop basic oral proficiency, but from
5-7 years to reach academic proficiency. There will always be exceptional
cases due to a
variety of factors that effect the rate of L2 acquisition, but sound policy must be based on realistic assumptions about
achievement patterns of the majority of students. |
|
Ideological
Frame of Reference Fear
and Force Ingroup
Coalescence Competition Euphemisms
|
Parents
who choose to enroll their children in bilingual programs are jeopardizing
their futures because they have to take tests in English to progress
academically and to compete for admission to college. Students in
bilingual programs get lower test scores than students in English
immersion. After all, this is America and the national language is
English, so parents who want bilingual education for their children are
not being loyal to their host country. English-only education is the “will
of the people.”
|
Parents
may choose bilingual education for numerous valid social, economic and
cultural reasons based on a weighing of the advantages and risks involved
in their choice. If programs are well implemented, they need have no fear
of lost opportunities for their children. Tests in English are often
invalid and unreliable measures of bilingual students’ overall academic
achievement. Using testing to sort students and deny them opportunities is
discriminatory and unjust. This is a societal problem that must be
addressed through inclusive and collaboration policy decision-making
processes. The majority should not have the power to limit opportunities
for the minority based on political and social ideology. |
|
Lack of Cogency Biased Language Assumption-loaded Labels Persuasive Definition |
English
immersion programs are better than bilingual education. State agencies
have promoted bilingual education and have unfairly portrayed English
immersion as an inferior program. Bilingual education is an “unmitigated
failure” for language minority students. It has only been kept in place
by “the bilingual industry” and the “education bureaucracy” in
spite of the wishes of parents.
Many parents have had trouble withdrawing their children from bilingual programs. If we eliminate bilingual education, then we can implement a program that will teach English “as rapidly and effectively as possible” rather than having students “languish” in bilingual programs year after year without learning English.
|
Some
bilingual programs have not succeeded. The same is true for some English
immersion programs. Program failure or success depends on a complex array
of factors that may be unrelated to the language of instruction used in
the program. Among the reasons are lack of resources, lack of community
support, administrative obstruction and lack of proper oversight. However,
there are many successful bilingual programs that serve as exemplars of
the potential and actual track record of sound pedagogical models with
diligent and faithful implementation of the model that have been
successful in local communities.
In some communities with concentrated populations of Spanish speakers, bilingual programs predominate and parents who want English-only programs are in the minority. Their rights to withdraw their children from a bilingual program are protected as a matter of law. These parents' failure to achieve full compliance from school officials according to the law does not mean that the law must be changed to impede the choices of parents who do want bilingual education. |
An Example of Argument Analysis
The arguments presented in the public media often appear to be highly cogent and authoritative. However, under close scrutiny using our critical thinking skills, we can identify the fallacies, hidden premises and lack of cogency in these arguments. Here is an example from an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The authors of the article are Bruce Fuller, Associate Professor of Education at the University of California at Berkeley and Luis Huerta, a researcher with Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). The article is titled, "State action deserves a lot of credit for better test scores." It appeared in the LA Times on July 20, 2000. The main conclusion of the article as a whole is that three policy thrusts resulting from "state activism" have contributed to rising test scores: Class size reduction, rising preschool support, and English-only teaching. This paragraph is intended to answer the question:
[W]hat policy medicines are proving to be so potent in improving California pupils' scores?
English-only teaching. Two years ago, California voters approved the controversial Proposition 227, cutting back on non-English classroom teaching. Districts have responded in various ways, but the net effect has been to increase the amount of instruction that occurs in English, according to UC researchers Patricia Gándara and Russ Rumberger. And local schools responding effectively to the needs of children with limited English proficiency may yield stronger Stanford 9 scores.
Fuller and Huerta go on to conclude the following in their article:
Despite their differing origins and philosophies, all three policy thrusts stem from an activist state government or from voters impatient with incremental change. In turn, state policymakers are eager to echo voters' cry for strong action, promising that programs crafted in Sacramento will challenge teachers and students to do better. The latest test scores suggest that this renewed faith in state activism is yielding good results inside classrooms.
Let us examine the anatomy of this argument. Our first step is argument identification. We identify and list the assertions and premises that supposedly support the conclusions. The next step is argument evaluation.
Assertions & Premises Evidence or Fallacy Passage of Proposition 227 required a cut back on non-English classroom teaching. Common knowledge of the requirements of Proposition 227 School districts have responded in various ways to this mandate with the net effect of increasing the amount of instruction in English. Study by UC Researchers Gándara and Rumberger
Fallacy: Intensification through testimonial The argument implies that Gándara & Rumberger concluded that increased amounts of instruction in English are a beneficial outcome of Proposition 227. This is not their conclusion. Click here to see the complete study from the Linguistic Minority Research Institute. In particular, see Table 3 on page 11: Primary language instruction 1998 and 1999 for districts in three categories of commitment to primary language programs prior to Proposition 227. Also visit this segment of the larger study authored by Patricia Gándara focusing on the impact of 227 on teachers.
Gándara & Rumberger findings actually show that there was a very small percentage of the total instructional time spent in primary language teaching in the 16 school districts they studied before passage of 227. The time spent in L1 instruction was 17-22% in districts with a weak or divided commitment to bilingual education before 227. Now instructional time is 2-8% in L1 in these districts. In districts with a strong commitment to bilingual education, the percentage of time spent in L1 instruction is virtually unchanged, from 33% prior to 227 to 31% currently. Their data actually cast doubt on the premise that lack of "English-only teaching" was ever a "problem." Furthermore, Gándara describes statements from bilingual teachers indicating that although they are teaching more English language, they are covering only half the amount of academic content because of the restrictions on the use of L1 for providing comprehensible input.
Fallacy: Unstated premise
These statements imply that ALL limited English proficient students are getting more instruction in English. The fact is that the amount of time spent in English only changed for 18% of LEP students (5% of the total school population) after Proposition 227.
Local schools are responding more effectively to the needs of students with limited English proficiency. Unstated assumption: English-only teaching is an effective response by local schools to the needs of LEP students.
As local schools respond more effectively to the needs of LEP students, SAT-9 test scores rise. Appeal to principle: More effective instruction that addresses students' needs leads to higher test scores.
Proposition 227, which is a result of voters' impatience with incremental reforms, is a good policy because it has caused an increase in test scores for LEP students. Fallacy: Post hoc Simply because two events occurred simultaneously in time does not establish a cause-effect relationship.
Unwarranted conclusion: The authors fail to establish a causal relationship between increased English-only teaching mandated by 227 and a rise in test scores. There is no evidence presented to substantiate the claim that English-only teaching is a major factor in increases in test scores for all of California's students. Therefore, such "policy medicines" as Proposition 227 should restore our faith in "state activism" to reform classroom instruction. Fallacy: Mob Appeal
Conclusion suggests that impatient voters are good policy makers and that politicians should listen to their "cry for strong action."
Fallacy: Assumption-laden Labels
The term "policy medicines" implies that there is a disease or illness that must be treated. Since "English-only teaching" is suggested as a cure, by implication the disease must have been NON-English-only teaching, i.e., bilingual education. However, no evidence is presented to substantiate this argument.
The term "state activism" implies that a majority vote on a ballot initiative is an action by the state that moves us forward in a positive way, associating "activism" with progress toward equal opportunity and civil rights.
This argument demonstrates how even though all of the assertions made to support an argument may be true, the argument lacks cogency. The hidden premises and unsubstantiated assertions must be examined to disclose fallacies and inadequacies of what appeal to be valid and convincing arguments. This is an example of how policies are based on insufficient evidence and superficial analyses of available empirical data and research. We must challenge the wisdom of policies made by voters who are impatient with incremental reform and call for strong action. One must wonder whether these voter-mandated "policy medicines," the effects of which have not been fully analyzed or anticipated, actually fit the "disease" they were designed to remedy. We must further question whether there was ever a "disease" in the first place.
This editorial points out the problematic nature of an ideologically-based analysis of test scores. The authors apparently overlook completely the entirety of the STAR testing program, which includes testing in Spanish of students who are enrolled in bilingual waiver and two-way bilingual Spanish/English immersion programs. It is apparent when we look at BOTH the SAT-9 and the SABE/2 reading scores so far that the majority of students who are being taught to read in their native language and tested in that same language are performing at or above grade level in literacy. The argument can be made that the students we must really worry about are those who are only being taught in their second language and may not be literate in any language and/or cannot perform on the SAT-9 because of the language of the test. The real issue here is the value of literacy in one's native language, the value of biliteracy, and the damage caused by policies that attempt to deny children opportunities to become literate and to learn academic content in the language they speak and understand through well-implemented developmental bilingual and two-way bilingual immersion programs.
References:
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., García, E., Asato, J., Gutiérrez, K. Stritkus, T. & Curry, J. (2000). The initial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of English learners. Davis, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Center.
Rumberger, R.W., & Gándara, P. (2000). The schooling of English learners. In E. Burr, G.C. Hayward, B. Fuller, & M.W. Kirst (Eds.). Crucial issues in California education 2000: Are the reform pieces fitting together? (p. 23-44). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education PACE.
Click here to return to the Critical Thinking in the Bilingual Education Debate page.
This page was last updated on 02/06/06