Sacramento, CA -- How does it feel to be a passenger on the education version of the Titanic? Just ask bilingual education advocates who are facing a huge iceberg called Proposition 227, the ballot measure that would replace bilingual education with sheltered English immersion.

Under sheltered immersion, limited-English-proficient students receive classroom instruction in their academic subjects in English at a level which “is always geared to the children’s language proficiency at each stage so that it is comprehensible, and the student thus learns [English] and subject matter content simultaneously” according to Boston University professor Christine Rossell.

Confronted with nearly 70-percent public support for Prop. 227, opponents of the initiative are desperately trying to find life-raft arguments that will save bilingual education from sinking into the ocean of history. So far their attempts seem to have run aground.

For instance, David Tokofsky, a Los Angeles school board member and Prop. 227 opponent, recently admitted that he is troubled by the fact that Los Angeles school officials have failed to produce empirical evidence that bilingual education works. Tokofsky warned his district’s pro-bilingual superintendent and staff that they “better have more than emotional responses to present to justify continuation of [bilingual] programs.” By contrast, a recent groundbreaking national study by New Mexico State University economics professor Marie Mora found that English immersion was more effective than bilingual education in improving student performance.

In her study, Prof. Mora compared the test scores and drop-out rates of a national sample of limited-English-proficient Hispanic eighth-graders who were instructed through either bilingual education or English immersion. What makes Prof. Mora’s study especially significant is the fact that she follows the progress of this large national sample of students over a period of time (so-called longitudinal data, in the academic jargon).

Holding constant such factors as socioeconomic status, poor initial English skills, immigration status, etc., Prof. Mora’s findings are eye-opening: “Specifically, I find that Hispanics who receive [English Language Assistance, i.e. bilingual education or English-as-a-Second-Language], at school after the eighth grade report significantly lower English fluency acquisition, are significantly more likely to drop out of school, and make lower reading progress than their otherwise similar peers who receive [English Immersion].”

A natural follow-up question: does the type of instruction students receive affect their later earnings? A second recent study, co-authored by Prof. Mora and University of Maryland Prof. Mark Hugo Lopez, provides some answers. Looking at a national sample of Hispanic workers who received either bilingual education or English immersion, professors Mora and Lopez discovered that “first generation students who participated in [bilingual education] programs earn significantly less (approximately 50 percent less) than their otherwise similar English-immersed peers.” Among second generation students, the effect was the same, though not quite as dramatic.

The findings of these two studies would probably not surprise Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan. In his recent endorsement of Prop. 227, Mayor Riordan said, “I know of a few laboratory examples of bilingual education succeeding. But in the vast, vast majority of schools it is a total failure.” Emphasizing the importance of instruction in English, the mayor stated, “It is time to start giving our children the tools to compete, for today and tomorrow.” Given Prop. 227’s strong support, Californians across the economic and racial spectrum seem to agree.

-- Lance T. Izumi