Executive Summary

Abstract

This congressionally mandated study was directed to assess the relative effectiveness of using only-English or the non-English home language of the limited-English-proficient (LEP) child as the language of instruction to help the child acquire English language and content skills. Reflecting the objective of federally sponsored services to LEP students, the research question addressed by this study was: Which of three alternative instructional programs designed to meet the needs of Spanish-speaking LEP students helped them to “catch-up” to their English-speaking peers? The three programs included: Structured English-Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit, and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Programs. These programs differed in the amount of and the length of time that the LEP student's primary language was used for instruction. This longitudinal study followed over 2,000 elementary children for four years. The comprehensive data collection documented an array of child, family, classroom, teacher, school, district, and community information. The study concluded that providing LEP students with substantial instruction in their primary language does not interfere with or delay their acquisition of English language skills, but helps them to “catch-up” to their English-speaking peers in English language arts, English reading, and math. In contrast, providing LEP students with almost exclusive instruction in English does not accelerate their acquisition of English language arts, reading or math, i.e., they do not appear to be “catching-up.” The data suggest that by grade six, students provided with English-only instruction may actually fall further behind their English-speaking peers. Data also document that learning a second language will take six or more years. The results revealed the need to improve the training of teachers assigned to work with limited-English-proficient students so that they can provide a more active learning environment for the development of language and higher order thinking skills.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 142 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.