The Programs of Bilingual Education

Background And History Of The Programs Ofand family background.
Bilingual EducationCongress was led down this path by the work of
Whether they are additive or subtractive,early education researchers such as James
programs of bilingual education are driven byColeman and Christopher Jencks, who had
operational policies and practices relative to theexamined groups of children in poverty and
student population, length of the program in eachconcluded that it was not the failure of the
language, level of proficiency students will pursueschools that was operant, but rather the social
in each language, and, importantly, the languageand cultural matrix in which these children were
skills required of their teachers. Of the two types,raised. The largest federal education program that
subtractive programs are the least complex.sought to remediate and compensate for the
In additive programs, the effort is much morenegative effects of poverty and "cultural
complex and demands greater modification of thedeprivation" in disadvantaged families was Title I
curriculum and staffing patterns than is the caseof the ESEA.
when a subtractive choice is made. The fact thatThe degree to which Congress was genuinely
these differences have not been well described toconvinced that this was the best strategy for
the schools by state and federal offices hasintervening in education is not clear. The ESEA
greatly contributed to the difficulties encounteredcame along at a time when the issue of states'
in determining whether bilingual education isrights was a major stumbling block to federal
effective in meeting its objectives.involvement in education. Many politicians who
Program success can be determined only if andbelieved in states' rights and the reserved powers
when the goals are clear and the organization,of the states to control their schools were still
operation, and resourcing of the program are inreeling from the impact of Brown v. Board of
harmony with its stated goals. At a deeper level,Education (1954) and federal pressures to
we can clarify the difference between additivedesegregate.
and subtractive forms of bilingual education byTitle I of the ESEA was, in addition to a wonderful
examining the policy foundations of the twoinvestment in children and youth, an effective
approaches. Subtractive bilingual education isway to soothe the bruises of states' rights
rooted in the tradition of remedial/compensatorysupporters by providing unprecedented amounts
education.of new funding to public education. It is perhaps
This was the operating ideology that shaped muchcoincidental that southern states, because of high
of the federal government's involvement inlevels of poverty, were entitled to substantial
education, beginning with the Elementary andamounts of federal money. Politicians from the
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and thesouthern states were the most vociferous
other large federal program, Head Start. From thedefenders of states' rights in education and
outset, the government's involvement was basedkeeping the federal government out of the public
on a perceived need to remediate the inadequateschools.
background of children in poverty. There was aBut financial support was sorely needed in that
strong perception then, one that has manyregion. It is not known what incentives and
subscribers even today, that lack of schoolinducements, if any, may have been offered to
success by poor and minority children was due tosecure the support of key congressional
the lack of a sufficiently robust cultural foundationdelegations to ensure passage of the ESEA in
on which to build-hence the need to remediate1965 and the additions, amendments, and
and compensate for lacunae in the child's culturalmodifications that came later.