The United States has always been home to significant numbers of nonEnglish speakers. Sometimes the language differences have been tolerated by English-speaking Americans, but not always. In the first half of the nineteenth century, for example, the most prevalent language next to
English was German. In the 1850s, bilingual schools (schools in which
two languages were taught) teaching in German and English were operating in Baltimore, Maryland; Cincinnati and Cleveland, Ohio;
Indianapolis, Indiana; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and St. Louis, Missouri.
Similarly, Louisiana, with its large French-speaking population, allowed
bilingual instruction in its schools. (See New France.) Several states in
the Southwest had Spanish as well as English instruction. Hundreds of
thousands of children in the United States were educated in a language
other than English.
Anti-immigrant movement
Around 1900, anti-immigrant sentiments in the country increased.
Several states passed laws against teaching in other languages. Immigrant
children who did not speak English began to have a hard time in the
public schools. In 1908, only 13 percent of the immigrant children enrolled in New York City schools at age twelve were likely to go on to high
school, as opposed to 32 percent of native-born students. This trend was
mirrored across the country as non-English-speaking immigrant children, not understanding the language spoken in their classrooms, fell
further and further behind.
During World War I (1914–18), an intense wave of nationalism
(pride and loyalty to one’s own country, sometimes in an excessive way)
swept the country. It reinforced the negative reaction of many Americans
to the large number of immigrants entering the country. By 1925, thirtyseven states had passed laws requiring instruction in English regardless of
the dominant language of the region. This opposition to bilingual education continued into the 1950s. Many children whose native language
was not English received a very poor education in the public school system.
Federal government support
After the Cuban revolution of 1959, waves of Cubans fled to South
Florida. Florida’s Coral Way school district established the first statesupported program in decades to instruct students in Spanish, their native language, thereby easing their transition to English. The bilingual
program provided all students, Anglo and Cuban, instruction in both
Spanish and English with excellent results. With the success of the Coral
Way project, state and local government involvement in language education became accepted.
The federal government soon took up the cause, starting with the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in education, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which
funded schools and provided help for disadvantaged students. In 1968,
after considerable debate, Congress passed a bill that amended (modified) the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Under the amendment, the federal government would provide funding for bilingual
education to school districts with a large proportion of non-Englishspeaking students who lived in poor neighborhoods. To receive funding,
districts would be required to provide instruction in a student’s native
language until the child could demonstrate competence in English. The
federal government put hundreds of millions of dollars into bilingual education programs nationwide by the mid-1970s.
Supreme Court support
In 1974, the Supreme Court gave its support to bilingual education in
Lau v. Nichols. The ruling states that school districts with a substantial
number of non-English-speaking students must take steps to overcome
the students’ language differences. After that ruling, the federal government was able to force school districts to initiate bilingual education
plans. These Lau plans greatly expanded the number of bilingual programs across the country. They set standards to determine which students qualified for inclusion in a program and when they could be
allowed (or forced) to exit. During this period, test scores repeatedly
showed that non-English-speaking students who participated in well-designed bilingual programs consistently performed at the same level as
their English-speaking classmates.
English immersion
None of the new acts or policies clearly addressed the goals of bilingual
programs. Should the programs aim to send the student quickly back to
regular English-language classes, or should they take a slower approach,
allowing the student to maintain good grades and stay up to standard
with his or her age level in school? Different programs addressed these
questions in their own ways, and the lack of clarity contributed to a conflict that lasted into the 2000s. By the 1980s, a growing number of opponents of bilingual education believed that, rather than speeding
immigrants into the English-speaking mainstream, bilingual education was causing them to hold onto their native languages and cultures. The
critics considered this undesirable. Studies showed that some bilingual
programs were allowing students to remain in bilingual classes longer
than three years and were not teaching them sufficient English to function in mainstream classrooms. In the early 1980s, the federal government quietly withdrew its support for native-language instruction
programs.
In 1984, the government began providing funding for English immersion programs—programs that placed non-English-speaking students in all-English classes, forcing them to learn English in a hurry or
be left behind. Several studies in the mid-1980s showed that the performance of the limited-English students in the English immersion programs declined. Meanwhile, public attitudes in California, with its
rapidly growing foreign-born population, became increasingly hostile to
bilingual programs. In 1998, California adopted an English-only requirement for instruction in all its schools. Arizona and several other
states followed.
Bilingual education remained controversial in the 2000s. Advocates
contended that non-English-speaking children will receive little or no
education unless they are taught in their own language during the years
when they are first learning English. With a poor start due to language
difference, students are much more likely to drop out of school and consequently face low-paying jobs and poverty in the future. Opponents
argue that students in bilingual programs may not be motivated to learn
English as well as they should and will therefore not be able to secure
good jobs later in life. They argue that the government should not use its
funds to help non-native people preserve their cultures in the United States.