Crawford - Life in a Politicized Climate What Role for Educational Researchers

8/9/2019 Crawford - Life in a Politicized Climate What Role for Educational Researchers

1/22

Life in a Politicized Climate:What Role for Educational Researchers?

by James Crawford

Linguistic Minority Research InstituteConference on the Schooling of English Language

Learners in the Post 227 EraSacramento, California

May 14, 1999

Today we'll be looking at the politics of Proposition 227and what they portend for the future of bilingual educationin this country. No doubt some of you have heard meaddress these subjects before. But today, I'm going toapproach them a bit differently.

Normally, when I speak to groups of educators, I amacutely conscious of preaching to the converted. I feel likean outside evangelist called in to hold a revival meeting,

comfort the afflicted, denounce the Satanic forces, andmake people feel vindicated for staying on the righteouspath.

Growing up in East Tennessee, I was immersed in thistradition from an early age. Tent meetings and travelingevangelists were part of the culture. Sometimes these evenincluded the handling of poisonous snakes, a thrilling typeof service that you never seemed to get in the established

churches. It's a complex ritual, to which I cannot do fulljustice here. Suffice to say that handling a copperhead or arattlesnake functions as a test of faith against powerfulsymbols of evil. Naturally the dangers go well beyond thesymbolic; each year a few people die and more arepoisoned. Yet flirting with evil and surviving can be

Language Policy -- English Only http://www.languagepolicy.net/articles/LMRI.htm

of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


2/22

extremely cathartic, and thus remains a popular form ofreligious experience.

Bag of Snakes

This pretty much sums up my normal approach when

speaking on Proposition 227. I bring along a bag full ofsnakes Ron Unz, English-only advocates, enemies of thepublic schools and we kick them around for a while. It's aritual that makes everybody feel a lot better. Whether it hasany effect on public policy is another matter. Certainly not,if these ideas remain within our own narrow circles.

So today I'm going to try a new tack. I did bring along thesnakes and I plan to release them shortly. But I intend to

use them for a different purpose a more worldly purpose,I hope to frighten the faithful into confronting somedifficult issues, to grapple with questions such as thefollowing:

Is there an antidote for the venomous politicssurrounding bilingual education today?Can future Unz initiatives and similar restrictivelegislation be defeated?

Is it possible to influence voters and policymakers torethink their aversion to native-language instruction?If so, what role should educational researchers beplaying in all of this?

Now, for purposes of argument, I will assume that virtuallyeveryone attending this conference believes researchers inbilingualism ought to be playingsome part in the publicpolicy debate. Although I suspect there's a spectrum ofopinion on what forms that participation should take.

In addition, I believe most people here would probablyagree that educational researchers as a group played alimited and rather ineffectual role in the losing campaignagainst Proposition 227. This is not to ignore the


2 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


3/22

contributions of various individuals, several of whom are inthe room today, who took an active part in the publicdiscourse. Quite a number of people spoke out as experts in debates with Ron Unz, media interviews, talk shows,and other forums.

Yet, I'm sorry to say, the voters hardly seemed to notice.Certainly, it's hard to believe that many of them cast theirballots, Yes or No, on the basis of scientific evidence. Morelikely, they cast them on the basis of ethnic loyalties,attitudes toward the schools, and gut feelings aboutlanguage acquisition. Why did research have such alimited impact on the outcome? No doubt there wereseveral factors at work. I'll focus on three of them:

Inconsistent Message

First, the individual advocates who came forward to defendbilingual education whether researchers ornonacademics like myself did so with many voices,emphasizing diverse evidence and arguments, and lackingany central coordination from our own campaign. Thismade for a complex message, delivered by numerousmessengers, to different media, in different contexts,

without any planning whatsoever. No wonder its impactwas limited.

By contrast, Ron Unz was repeating the same points atevery campaign stop, simplistic but seemingly logical ideasthat reinforced myths the voters already harbored aboutsecond-language acquisition. Thus his key argumentsappeared consistently in the news media. This is whatpoliticians call "staying on message." As a result, Unz

managed to make this a referendum between bilingualeducation on the one hand and "English for the Children"on the other. No contest.

By and large, experts who could have effectively debunkedthis misconception never managed to marshal the data to


3 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


4/22

show what a false choice this was. Our contributions weresporadic and uncoordinated, in part because of thestrategy of the No on 227 campaign. It kept telling us,"Don't Defend Bilingual Education." By avoiding anydiscussion of the issue, our leadership hoped to refocus

voters' attention on the Unz initiative itself, with all itsextreme features. This gamble did not pay off. Changingthe subject ultimately proved futile in changing the mindsof voters.

Ad Hominem Attacks

A second factor also deserves mention. Yes on 227, withconsiderable help from journalists, worked to discredit theentire field of research in second-language acquisition, in

particular to neutralize scientific voices on theeffectiveness question. Ron Unz did this first with adhominem attacks, charging that academic supporters ofbilingual education were part of the "loony Left," isolatedfrom reality, and corrupted by their government fundingand ties to ethnic lobbies. His appeal to the cynicism of

journalists worked brilliantly.

Unz also achieved his goal with attacks on the research

itself. Quite cleverly, he dismissed all studies on bilingualeducation whether pro or con as biased, slipshod, andunreliable. "Utter garbage," was the term he often used. Herefused to cite any of it, even studies by his ally ChristineRossell, of Boston University, who claims to have helped indrafting Proposition 227.

That way, Unz found it easier to argue that Californiansshould reject all research and fall back on their common

sense. For example:"Everyone knows" that young children are the bestlanguage learners."Everyone knows" they can pick up English within afew months if they're not held back by native


4 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


5/22

language instruction.And "everyone knows" immigrant students arelanguishing in non-English-language classrooms,falling behind their peers, and dropping out of school.

It was all so obvious. Who needed academic experts toconfuse the issue? This, too, proved an irresistible appealto many journalists, and not just to the overtanti-intellectuals.

Lack of Consensus

This brings us to the third and most sensitive point I wantto mention about researchers' role or lack thereof in theProposition 227 debate. I believe there is no clear

consensus within the field itself about the state of theresearch. In particular: how to summarize scientificfindings, what policy conclusions to draw, and evenwhether it is worthwhile to continue comparing alternativeprogram models.

I would argue that this is so despite attempts to developsuch a consensus, notably the 1997 National ResearchCouncil reportImproving Schooling for Language-

Minority Children: A Research Agenda.As you know,this is a huge document, with numerous authors, coveringlots of diverse material, and presenting findings that arecomplex and sometimes contradictory.

It's no secret that certain kinds of research providestronger support for use of the native language thanothers. For example, there's a great deal of evidence fromsmall, controlled studies showing the transferability ofcontent knowledge and literacy skills from one language to

another strongly suggesting that time spent learning inthe native language is learning time well spent. On theother hand, owing to the inherent difficulties of programevaluation studies, there's considerably less high-qualitydata on the long-term academic effects of developing


5 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


6/22

students' native language to greater or lesser degrees.Which is not to say there is none at all, but all real-worldstudies have limitations and all are open to criticism.

Portraying this complex picture inevitably makes the NRC

report susceptible to varying interpretations. Manycolleagues inside the field see it as an important stepforward in summarizing and depoliticizing the scientificevidence on how to educate English learners. And yet,outside the field, in the political debates raging over thisissue, the NRC report is more often cited by critics ofbilingual education than by its supporters. This should tellus something about the communication problem we face.

During the Proposition 227 campaign, I collectednumerous references to the NRC report in the popularmedia. Invariably, it was cited in a one-sided way tochallenge the reliability of any and all research in this field to characterize it as politicized, inconclusive, and thusworthless as a basis for policy decisions.

Now reasonable people can disagree on whether thisrepresents an outrageous distortion of the text. Or whether

the NRC report was drafted in such a way that it invitedsuch interpretations. Still, I think there's no question that,in the public policy debate, its net effect has been toundercut support for bilingual education. It has givenskeptical politicians and journalists an excuse to dismissbilingual education as an "unproven theory," rather thanconsider the data that do exist.

For the most part, the dismissal of research evidence hasgone effectively unchallenged by researchers themselves.

Perhaps that's because few academics these days areaccustomed to participating in the public forum, as publicintellectuals. Of course, this doesn't prevent what theysay in academic forums from being appropriated byadvocates and even used to oppose what the researchers


6 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


7/22

in fact believe.

This is not a new problem. I have noticed it ever since Istarted writing about this field in the mid-1980s. Candidstatements about the state of the research have been

seized upon by critics as evidence that "even thesupporters of bilingual education admit that it doesn'twork." Disagreements tend to get increasingly polarizedand politicized as the stakes get progressively higher. Nota gentle climate in which to do research or to teach kids,for that matter. A climate that shows no signs of changingof its own accord.

Conflicted over Roles

Which brings us back to our original question: How shouldresearchers respond to this situation? Should they retreatfrom the public arena altogether, leaving it to the politicaladvocates? Or should they find more effective ways towork in that arena, as scholar-activists? I think the field isdivided or perhaps a better word would be conflicted over these questions. Because, for many researchers,neither alternative seems very attractive.

On the one hand, they hate to see policies for Englishlearners like Proposition 227 decided on the basis ofprejudice and ignorance. On the other hand, they worrythat playing too big a part in the political circus couldundermine their own credibility and that of their work.

So, for many, it is tempting to withdraw from the debateover on language of instruction, and to condemn thissingle-minded focus. This is, after all, only one program

variable for English learners, and not always the most

important. It is tempting to call for a cease-fire in thepolitical debate and urge everyone to get back todiscussing other pressing pedagogical issues.

At the same time, it is hard to see how this would solve


7 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


8/22

anything in practice, especially when one side is winningthe war of public opinion, scoring victories like Proposition227. For the critics of bilingual education, where is theincentive to depoliticize? One might as well preachdisarmament to a band of invading Cossacks. Not a veryeffective tactic for the peasants.

In grappling with this dilemma, it is important to speakconcretely. You can only get so far discussing concepts likepoliticization and activism and advocacyin the abstract.Not only do they have different connotations for differentpeople, but these terms can also obscure importantdistinctions. For example, when one condemns the"politicization" of the language-of-instruction debate, it

implies a kind of moral equivalence a symmetry in whichboth sides are at fault, grinding the same kinds ofideological axes and committing the same types ofexcesses. I believe this is a false symmetry in almost everyrespect.

Changing of the Guard

Let's begin by taking a closer look at the character oftoday's anti-bilingual movement. The devil in all its details.

In case you hadn't noticed, it is no longer dominated by theflag-waving, immigrant-baiting, single-issue zealots at U.S.English and English First.

Today the traditional English-only campaign seemsincreasingly irrelevant. I believe it peaked about three

years ago, when Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole embracedthe cause and the U.S. House of Representatives passedH.R. 123, the so-called "English Language Empowerment

Act of 1996." The idea being to "empower" non-Englishspeakers in the same way that House Republicans"empowered" immigrants and welfare recipients bycutting off services and forcing people to fend forthemselves.


8 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


9/22

Had H.R. 123 become law, it would have effectivelyprohibited the U.S. government and its employees frompublishing any written materials in a language other thanEnglish. A rather disturbing precedent, although the

practical impact would have been limited, since 99.94percent of what the U.S. government now publishes isprinted in English. The documents at risk were mainlytranslations of IRS forms, social security information,

voting materials in a few jurisdictions, and touristbrochures at national parks.

Fortunately, this bill never came to a vote in the Senate,where another group of Republicans were dubious about

the idea. They worried about alienating Latinos, the fastest-growing sector of the electorate. And to no real purpose,other than making a symbolic statement is deeply insultingto many ethnic minorities. I believe a growing number of

Americans are coming to view English-only legislation inthis light. People who once saw these measures asinnocent now recognize how pointless and divisive theyare. Meanwhile, English-only advocates are running out ofstates where it can score easy victories.

Long ago they ran out of new ideas. They continue to enjoya following, to raise money through the mail, and to runpatronizing ads about English unlocking the AmericanDream. Nevertheless, they seem to be approaching apolitical dead-end.

Their attacks on bilingual education over the years haverarely been effective because, while they paid lip service tohelping children learn English, they also tended to portray

language minorities in a sinister light: as a Big Problem forthe country. U.S. English has never been able to decidewhether it truly wants to help assimilate immigrants or toslam the Golden Door in their faces.


9 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


10/22

So, if bilingual education had to have an opposition, theseold-time English-only leaders were ideal. They were crude,extreme, xenophobic, unsophisticated, and amateurish. It'stoo bad that Ron Unz has supplanted these people.

Because he is none of those things. Which makes him a farmore formidable opponent.

In effect, Proposition 227 represented a changing of theguard in the anti-bilingual leadership. While Unz led themost consequential English-only campaign ever, U.S.English and English First stayed in Washington to lobbyagainst the Puerto Rico plebiscite bill, fretting about thepossibility of a Spanish-speaking state sometime in the

future. An obsession that few other Americans seem toshare.

Ron Unz, by contrast, knows all too well what worriesAmerican voters. Not only immigration and languagediversity, but also the performance of public schools in anera of social and demographic change. He recognized theadvantages of stressing the latter, not the former, asthemes of the Proposition 227 campaign.

New Platform for AttacksIn effect, Unz repositioned the attack on bilingualeducation no longer launching it from a stance ofnativism and intolerance, but from the more respectableplatform of school reform. As a neoconservative, he soughtto capitalize on the voters' fears and frustrations aboutpublic education. The 227 campaign gave him anopportunity to demonize favorite villains of the Right:supporters of Big Government, teachers' unions, ivory

tower academics, civil rights advocates, and of course, thedreaded "education establishment."

Bilingual education turned out to be an ideal target forthese purposes. And, of course, a vulnerable one as well.


0 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


11/22

That was something the traditional English-only activistshad failed to grasp because they were so wrapped up insymbolic politics.

Unz opposed bilingual education not as an internal security

threat or an undeserved benefit to immigrants, but ratheras a "failed social program" of the 1960s. An educational"fad" promoted by liberal elites. Part of a litany of "wrong-headed pedagogical experiments," including "wholelanguage, invented spelling, 'fuzzy math,' constructivistscience, and endless self-esteem programs."

That quote, by the way, demonstrates the success of Unz'sefforts to be treated as a sincere reformer, a responsible

conservative. It comes from an article he published twoweeks ago, not in theNational Reviewor the Wall Street

Journal, but in theNation magazine, one of the lastvestiges of Left-wing journalism in this country.

His reception by California media during the 227campaign was equally respectful. Basically, after it wasestablished that Unz had no white sheets in his closet,

journalists lost interest in his larger political agenda

which remained effectively hidden in plain sight. Reporterstended to take most of what he said at face value. In fact,they did such a thorough job of recycling his message thathe didn't even need to run TV advertising in the late stagesof the campaign.

None of this happened by accident. It was part of Unz'sconscious strategy. As you'll recall, he carefully avoidedbeing labeled an immigrant basher. Instead he posed as animmigrant advocate against unresponsive schools. Not

only did he recruit Jaime Escalante, Gloria Matta Tuchman,and other Latinos as campaign figureheads. He alsospurned the support of Pete Wilson, citing the governor'srecord of divisiveness. And he provoked California'snativist fringe groups into opposing 227.


1 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


12/22

On a pragmatic basis, if nothing else, Ron Unz recognizesthat pandering to nativism as many of his Right-wingcomrades have done is self-defeating in the long term.Because after passions cool, members of the majority

usually forget about their own excesses, but the victimshave long memories. And if they vote, watch out.A lessonthat California Republicans recently learned.

Unz's strategy was less risky and also more effective. Bypositioning himself as a moderate, he still got plenty ofanti-immigrant votes for 227, while simultaneouslybroadening his appeal. By focusing on pedagogical issuesalone leaving out the racially charged attacks on

bilingualism he played to his natural advantage. There iswidespread public ignorance about second-languageacquisition and about programs for English learners.

Conversely, this is the major disadvantage for theadvocates of bilingual education. Virtually nobody outsidethe field understands it. Every layperson I encounter including plenty who are progressive and fair-minded seeit as an alternative to English instruction. Simple as that.

Now, as we all know, there are some hopelessly biasedpeople out there who don't want a dime of their tax moneygoing to immigrants. Who don't care whether language-minority kids succeed academically, as long as thegardeners and sales clerks of tomorrow can communicatein basic English. Such people are unlikely to change theirminds about bilingual education.

I am convinced, however, that this is a relatively small

minority. Most native-born, English-speaking Americans if they understood that developing the native language isgood for English and good for long-term academicachievement would support bilingual education. Theproblem is, almost none of them have heard the case. They


2 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


13/22

have only heard the disinformation, coming from peoplewho oppose these programs for extraneous (i.e., political)reasons.

Ron Unz and his cohorts, including a handful of academic

critics, have worked to become effective advocates in thepolicy debate. Whereas researchers, advocates, andpractitioners in bilingual education are rarely effective. Notfor lack of ability or arguments or data. But because, overthe years, with some exceptions during the 227 campaign,they have rarely tried to shape public attitudes aboutprograms for English learners. Perhaps that's why Unz isnow exporting his anti-bilingual campaign to Arizona andis testing the waters in Colorado, Massachusetts, New

York, and other states. Bullies prefer targets that don't fightback.

Longstanding Neglect

I have been outspoken in criticizing the No on 227campaign for refusing to defend bilingual education. But,in fairness, I must say this is a problem of longstanding.For example, there are numerous centers dedicated toconducting research on educational programs for English

learners and to disseminating the results to practitioners.Most of them do excellent work. Yet they are all focusedinward, on serving the field itself. None is oriented towardeducating the public about these matters.

It's not merely researchers who have neglected this task.Despite fifteen years of relentless attacks on bilingualeducation, from U.S. English to Bill Bennett to NewtGingrich to Ron Unz, there has been little concerted

attempt by anyone to repair the program's publicimage. Over the years, this has had a serious cumulativeeffect. It is a painful lesson we learned, or should havelearned, last year in California.

So I have to laugh when I hear journalists refer to the


3 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


14/22

"powerful bilingual education lobby," with its highly"political" orientation. The truth is: you'd be hard-pressedto find a less political group of professionals thaneducators, bilingual or otherwise. Of course, most bilingualeducators do believe that proficiency in two or morelanguages is beneficial. That there is no pedagogicalreason for kids to give up their first language in order tolearn English. And that, at parents' option, children shouldhave an opportunity to maintain the heritage language.

Only in America would this be labeled a "political" position.In most other countries, it would be considered aneducational goal, and a reasonable one at that. Yetpeople here tend to assume that, if minority kids are

involved, advocating bilingualism must be ethnicallymotivated. That bilingual education is all about "the politicsof language."

When I first started writing about this field, I tried to locatethe ethnic militants who were allegedly promoting native-language instruction as a way to provide jobs forHispanics, or keep Spanish-speaking ghettos intact, oreven hatch separatist plots to liberate Aztln, or whatever.

But I never could find them. If such activists ever existed,they have long since passed from the scene. The Chicanomilitants I have researched from the late 60s and early 70s like La Raza Unida Party, which instituted bilingualeducation in Crystal City, Texas were strongly orientedtoward teaching English.

All this is consistent with the only political motivation Ihave personally encountered for these programs. Quite

simply, it is a belief in equal educational opportunity, adetermination to remedy the neglect that English learnerslong suffered by providing them programs that researchershave found to be promising. Frankly, I fail to see how that"politicizes" the debate over language of instruction. To thecontrary, I think it reflects a desire to resistexternal


4 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


15/22

non-pedagogical influences on the curriculum, such asthose exerted by English-only advocates.

The True Politicizers

Now, if you want to talk about "politicization" of research,

let's consider what certain critics of bilingual education areup to. It provides an instructive contrast.

The small handful of academics on that side of the fenceseem to have no hesitation about aligning themselves withpolitical advocacy groups. Christine Rossell serves alongwith Ron Unz on the board of the Center for EqualOpportunity (CEO), an outfit headed by Linda Chavez andfunded by Unz, the John D. Olin Foundation, and other

conservative benefactors. All of CEO's activities arededicated to opposing three policies: bilingual education,multiculturalism, and affirmative action. That's all it does.Currently, for example, it is suing the Albuquerque PublicSchools seeking to have bilingual education declaredunconstitutional under New Mexico law.

Rossell's frequent coauthor, Keith Baker, formerly of theU.S. Department of Education was recruited by U.S.

English to found the so-called READ Institute. READ inturn has funded studies critical of bilingual education andsupportive of "structured immersion." After a short time,Baker was replaced by Rosalie Porter as director of READ.Nevertheless, the organization continued to receivegenerous assistance help from the financial supportersbehind U.S. English, the same forces that financeimmigration-restriction activities. Porter recently steppeddown as director and turned the operation over to Jorge

Amselle, an employee of CEO, where READ will now behoused.

Porter continues to edit the journalREAD Perspectives,which is aimed less at academic audiences than at

journalists and policymakers. Not long ago, she published


5 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


16/22

an analysis of the National Research Council report byCharles Glenn essentially arguing that it supports READ'sposition: that after 30 years of studying bilingualprograms, researchers still have no evidence of theireffectiveness.

This political spin on the NRC's conclusions has beenwidely disseminated, thanks in part to John Silber, formerchair of the Massachusetts State Board of Education, whosent it to every principal, superintendent, and local boardmember in his state. Among news reporters and producers,the READ monograph has gotten around far more than theoriginal report.

In addition, Porter has been quite successful in voicing hercriticisms in the popular media, including anAtlantic

Monthlyarticle just before the vote on Proposition 227.Baker and Rossell have also been highlighted in numerous

journalistic hatchet-jobs on bilingual education. And, ofcourse, all three give frequent expert testimony in civillitigation and legislative hearings, not to mention sessionsof the California State Board of Education.

Now, let me make myself clear. I see nothing unethical inthese activities accepting funding from politicallysympathetic sources, disseminating research with whichone agrees, writing popular articles, seeking to influencemedia coverage in other words, fighting hard for one'spoint of view in the public square.

I would welcome more of this kind of activism amongsupporters of bilingual education, instead of the prevailingreticence to participate in political and policy debates.

What I do challenge and what I wish researchers in thisfield would spend more time challenging is the substanceof the critics' academic work. Much of it is little more thanagit-prop masquerading as social science.


6 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


17/22

Rossell-Baker Review

Among numerous possible examples, I'll cite what I regardas the most significant of these studies: the Rossell-Baker1996 review of the literature. It was prominently featured

in the journalResearch in the Teaching of English(30:7-74) and also appeared in a book (Bilingual

Education in Massachusetts: The Emperor Has No

Clothes) that was widely disseminated to journalists bythe Pioneer Foundation of Boston, another neoconservative"think tank" devoted to "school reform." This paper seemsto have exerted a significant influence on policymakers largely, I think, because of its scientific trappings and itsdefinitive-sounding conclusions, such as "TBE [transitional

bilingual education] was better than submersion only 22%of the time."

Rossell and Baker claim to have weeded through a thicketof shoddy research in bilingual education and picked outonly the most rigorous studies to summarize. Aftercounting up the results in those that allegedly compare theeffectiveness of transitional bilingual education versus thatof structured immersion, they report that there was no

contest. In comparisons of reading achievement, programsusing the native language were judged inferior in tenstudies and no better in two others. By all appearances, theRossell-Baker report was a clear vindication of those whoadvocate English-only immersion programs for language-minority students in the United States.

And yet, if you track down the studies under review, asJimCummins and Steve Krashen have done, the picture

becomes rather murky. Seven of the ten studies wereactually comparisons of different forms of Frenchimmersion for English-speaking students in Canada. Theseprograms turn out to be either bilingual or trilingual, inboth methods and goals. Moreover, they operate in anentirely different social context from our own one in


7 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


18/22

which children were mostly middle-class and white, ratherthan mostly poor and minority, and in which students'home language enjoyed a higher status than the targetlanguage. Yet Rossell and Baker, relying on a theoreticalapproach they declined to elaborate, relabeled theseCanadian programs as "TBE" or "structured immersion."None of this was disclosed to their readers, who likelyassumed that actual program alternatives for LEP studentsin the United States were being compared.

Among the remaining three studies that purportedlyshowed the superiority of structured immersion, Rosselland Baker include a 1946 report on uncompleted researchinvolving English and Afrikaans speakers in South Africa

before World War II. Not an easy study to track down, butKrashen recently did. He found that (1) the data were notsubjected to any statistical tests and (2) there were nocontrols for pre-existing differences between students. Andthere were good reasons to believe the subjects differed insignificant ways that could have affected the results. Forexample, some Afrikaans-speaking students attendedbilingual schools in "remote rural areas," while othersattended urban schools, where English-only instruction

was more common.

The final two studies did involve Spanish-speaking kids inthe U.S., but details were limited about exactly what wasgoing on in the models being compared. In one of theso-called immersion programs, there was a substantialamount of Spanish-language instruction; in the other, thesample size was extremely small.

As Jay Greene puts it, rather politely, in his meta-analysis ofthe Rossell-Baker study, the reviewers' procedures leave a"potential for bias." Steve Krashen concludes, a bit morebluntly, that Rossell and Baker repeatedly violate their ownstandards of methodological acceptability. And I wouldadd: they do this with impunity. Neither professionally nor


8 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


19/22

politically have they paid a price for their methods. Quitethe contrary. They continue to receive the red carpet frommainsttream publications like thePhi Delta Kappan.

Now, some people might say: "This just goes to show what

happens when research debates become politicized: bothsides bend the rules for tendentious purposes." I beg todiffer. Not only does this let the true politicizers off thehook, but it also sends the wrong message to researcherswho believe in bilingual education who have no doubtsabout its benefits about what they should be doing.What's more, it is simply inaccurate.

Thomas-Collier Conundrum

As evidence for this last assessment, let me bring upanother sensitive subject. I refer to the ongoing Thomas-Collier study, whose reported findings confirm perhapsbetter than any evidence to date what our "side" in thisdebate has long maintained. The more developed thenative language skills of English learners, the better theyare likely to fare academically over the long term. Foradvocates of bilingual education, it would be hard toimagine better news.

Unfortunately, for reasons that remain unclear, Thomasand Collier have thus far declined to release sufficient datato support these findings. That is not just my opinion. It isthe opinion of many I would say most applied linguistswho would like to believe them. A frustrating situation forthe field, to judge by the amount of private grumbling. Fewof us have spoken out publicly, however, perhaps for fearof alienating old friends or giving aid and comfort to

current opponents. As a consequence, this smolderingissue this highly significant issue has yet to bediscussed in public. Someone needs to broach it. Alwaysthe loose cannon, today I am ready to play that role.

A year ago at this time, Thomas and Collier's results if


9 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


20/22

valid, and I have no grounds to doubt that they are seemed the perfect answer to Proposition 227. Tworespected researchers claimed to have reviewed "morethan 700,000 student records." After examining outcomesfrom the whole spectrum of programs for English learners,they reported a clear edge for developmental bilingualeducation, especially when compared to the short-termEnglish-only approach mandated by the initiative.Needless to say, it was tempting to use this ammunitionagainst Ron Unz, who had no evidence whatsoever tosupport his radical experiment. If anything could correctmedia misconceptions, many of us felt, this was it.

Yet no matter how desperate we felt during the 227

campaign, as far as I know Thomas and Collier wentuncited by advocates on the No side. Researchers in thefield viewed this as a question of professional ethics. Andrightly so. Scientists do not endorse studies as definitive, oraccept findings on faith, simply because they agree withthe conclusions. They first need to examine the details. Inthis case, many relevant details remain unavailable. So,when asked about the Thomas-Collier study, bilingualeducation researchers usually respond that, while the early

reports are intriguing, this remains unpublishedresearch.

Considering these circumstances, why should the critics ofbilingual education be held to a lower standard? That'swhat we are doing when we avoid criticizing themaggressively for fear of being labeled "too political."

I am glad to see the rebuttals to Rossell and Baker by

Cummins and Krashen. I would also note that Kenji Hakutaand Diane August have written a strong response to READ,setting the record straight about the NRC panel's report.

Yet none of the recent critiques seems to have penetratedthe popular media includingJay Greene's importantmeta-analysis, which appeared during the 227 campaign


20 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


21/22

but made virtually no news except in the Spanish-languagemedia.

Even the circulation of these articles in academic channelshas been limited. I have been happy to post them on my

web site. But I don't think this is the most effectivesolution, considering that my number of daily hits totalssomewhere in the high two figures. And judging from myemail, a sizable percentage of these representundergraduates doing term papers.

Politics Are Inescapable

What, then, should researchers be doing in this politicizedenvironment? Well, since you asked ... I am not suggesting

that anyone cook their data, lower scientific standards,produce tendentious reviews of research, or commit otherbreaches of professional ethics.

What I do advocate is simple: engage the critics ofbilingual education in every venue. In academic contexts,certainly. But equally important, in the forums they nowdominate the popular media and the policymaking bodies because what happens there matters a great deal to

language-minority students. At present, those who are thebest qualified to give advice on educating these kids people like you have virtually no influence in suchforums.

Changing this situation will mean learning how to frameissues in a context the public can understand. This is nosimple matter when you're facing off against demagogues.In short, it requires one to participate in politics. Which, asthe civil rights movement demonstrated, need not be a

reprehensible act. Nor one that is alien to professionalcommitments. To the contrary, it is vital to our work. It is

vital to the children we serve.

Copyright 1999 by James Crawford. All rights reserved.


21 of 22 06/17/2010 03:48


22/22

Except where otherwise marked, material from this web site maynot be republished in any form and for any purpose includingcourse use, electronic reserves, and Internet postings exceptby permission of the author at this email address or via PayPallinks on this site. SPECIAL NOTE TO STUDENTS: No

permission is required to quote from or paraphrase articles fromthis site in term papers, dissertations, or other course work notintended for publication. Of course, appropriate bibliographicalcredit should be given to avoid plagiarism. For furtherinformation, see my permissions FAQ.


Crawford - Life in a Politicized Climate What Role for Educational Researchers

Documents

Transcript of Crawford - Life in a Politicized Climate What Role for Educational Researchers