Mariane N. Pedersenthe Latino Education Crisis in the U.S.May 2014

THE LATINO EDUCATION CRISIS IN THE U.S.

Mariane N. Pedersen MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis - May 2014

OBLIGATORISK FORSIDE Prescribed front page Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis

HJEMMEOPGAVER, PROJEKTER, SYNOPSER U/ MUNDTLIGT FORSVAR Home Assignments, Project Reports, Synopses without oral defence

INSTITUT FOR ERHVERVSKOMMUNIKATION Department of Business Communication

STUDIENUMMER MP94037 Student No. EKSAMENSNR. (6 cifret 302764 nummer på studiekortet kaldet Kortnr. eller eksamensnr.) Student Exam No.: (6 digit No at your Student ID- card called either Kortnr. or Eksamensnr.) FAGETS NAVN: Bachelor Course/Exam Title

VEJLEDER: Mads Clausen Name of Supervisor

ANTAL 54.891 TYPEENHEDER I DIN BESVARELSE (ekskl. blanktegn): Number of Characters in your Assignment (exclusive of blanks):

Ved skriftlige gruppeopgaver skal den enkelte deltagers bidrag tydeligt fremgå. In written group exams, your individual contribution must be clearly identifiable.

Abstract

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis

This paper investigates the Latino education crisis in the U.S. Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the United States and constitute 16 % of the total U.S. population. Hispanics are also the youngest ethnic minority group and account for 25 % of the public school students. In 2050 Hispanic students are expected to exceed the number of white students in U.S. schools. Therefore, the educational outcomes of Hispanics will affect the future of America. However, Hispanic students are lagging far behind academically as they have a high high school dropout rate, a low high school completion rate as well as a low college graduation rate. Failure to graduate high school and to get a college degree result in Hispanics not achieving socioeconomic mobility. This paper will investigate what the reasons behind this Hispanic achievement gap are and look at programs and educational reforms that have been implemented to improve the educational achievement of Hispanic students. Furthermore, this paper investigates the effects of these programs and educational reforms to Hispanic education. The method used in this paper is a literature methodology, which draws on the works and research of different scholars and researchers in the field of education literature in a critical way The Hispanic achievement gap can be ascribed to many different factors. In this paper I have found the reasons to be family related, school related and community related as well as due to low motivation. Family related reasons include poverty, financial responsibilities, language other than English spoken in the home and low educational level of Hispanic parents. School related reasons include no preschool, inadequate school facilities, inadequate curriculum and instructional offerings and inadequate teachers. Community related reasons include segregation and lack of community role models. As a result, educational success is harder to achieve for Hispanics. As the Latino education crisis can be attributed to many reasons, there is not one single program that solves the problems. A few of the programs include Head Start, Success for all, Mother-Daughter programs and Puente. Other programs that respond to the Latino education crisis, especially for English language learners (ELLs), are bilingual programs and English-only programs. There has been a lot debate surrounding these programs. The general public, researchers and politicians do not agree on what is the best educational practice of how to teach English to ELLs, and whether or not the outcome of the education of ELLs should be fast acquisition of English or academic achievement in all subjects. Since the equality of education for Hispanics and ELLs has not been protected by federal policies, this has opened up for more restrictive and oppressive local policies such as Proposition 227 in California. English-only programs include submersion, ESL Pull Out, ESL Push-in and structured immersion. All programs are short- term and primarily taught in English and the goal is proficiency in English and to exit into a mainstream English classroom. Problems with the programs include falling behind academically in all other subjects than English, because of not receiving instruction in the native language, and the short-term duration of the program which does not consider that it takes 5-7 years to become fully proficient in a second language.

Proponents of English-only programs argue that it is the fastest way to acquire English proficiency and that bilingual education will tear the nation apart politically. Bilingual education programs include early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual programs and two-way bilingual programs. Bilingual programs are taught both in Spanish and English and the goal is bilingualism. The positive effects of being bilingual are cognitive benefits, linguistic interdependence and economic advantages in a globalized world. Proponents of bilingual education argue that bilingual education is the best way to learn English and keep on gradelevel in other subjects, and they argue that English proficiency is acquired as well as in English-only programs. Opponents, however, argue that bilingual education delays the acquisition of English. Evidence, on the other hand, shows that bilingual education does not slow the acquisition of English, and reseachers generally agree that the use of a student’s native language result in higher long-term academic achievement. Seeing that many Hispanic students become monolingual English speakers, it suggests that if Hispanics who grow up in the U.S. become bilingual, it will raise the overall achievement scores of Hispanics, and thereby result in higher Hispanic educational success. Furthermore, this suggests that a move away from language restrictive policies is necessary as well as further implementation of effective and high-quality bilingual programs in order to reduce the Hispanic achievement gap.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction1 In 2004 Harvard professor Samuel Huntington published an article in the journal Foreign Affairs called “the Hispanic Challenge”. Huntington claimed that the persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants was a threat to American culture and society as it threatened to divide the country into two cultures and two languages (Huntington, 2004). The article caused considerable debate in the U.S. (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). People in the academic community were quick to either support or refute Huntington’s claims. Huntington argued Hispanics failed to assimilate into the mainstream culture in a number of areas such as language, occupation, intermarriage and education (Huntington, 2004). Subsequent research has suggested that Huntington’s fears are mainly groundless (Gándara & Contreras, 2009), yet he was right in pointing out the urgency of the Hispanic education gap. Today Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the U.S. In 2010 they constituted 16 % of the U.S. population, with a 43 % increase from 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The Hispanics are also the youngest ethnic minority group in the nation. The Hispanic student growth is expected to continue and by 2050 there will be more school-aged Hispanic children than school-aged white students in the nation’s schools (Bedolla, 2012). The educational outcomes of Hispanics will therefore be crucial to the future of America. Hispanic students, however, lag dangerously far behind academically. The dropout rate for Hispanics is more than twice the national average (Bedolla, 2012). The Latino college graduation rates have not increased for more than 20 years, while the percentage of all other groups has increased (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Latinos also have the lowest college attendance rate of all ethnic groups in America (Bedolla, 2012). Failure to graduate high school and getting a college degree has lifelong negative consequences for Hispanics in achieving socioeconomic mobility as well as affecting the future of the nation (Soto, 2011). As the majority of Hispanic students are native born and the native born Hispanic population is growing faster than the Hispanic immigrant community, the low Hispanic educational attainment cannot only be ascribed to factors in relation to immigration. Instead, it is the result of circumstances found inside the U.S. (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). America cannot afford to create a permanent Latino underclass as the economic success of America is closely tied to the economic success of Hispanics (Excelencia in

1 The name of this paper, “The Latino Education Crisis”, is inspired by the book of the same name by Gándara & Contreras, 2009.

Education, 2012) and because education is the most effective method of incorporating the growing Hispanic population into the U.S. economy and society (Gándara & Contreras, 2009) something urgently needs to be done to reduce the educational achievement gap between Hispanics and the rest of the population.

1.1 Problem Statement One of the biggest problems for the largest, fastest growing and youngest minority group in the U.S., the Hispanics, is their growing educational achievement gap. Seeing that this problem is directly linked to the future of America, I want to investigate this issue. My problem statement is therefore as follows: What are the reasons for the low educational attainment by American Hispanic minorities? What is being and has been done to improve the educational achievement of Hispanic students? What are the effects of these programs and educational reforms to Hispanic education?

1.2 Method and Theory The method used in this paper is a literature methodology where I draw on the works, research and arguments of different scholars and researchers in the field of education literature in a critical way in order to answer my problem statement. The paper only includes statistical analysis to a lesser extent as the paper will draw on statistical material. However, I will not go into a complete analysis of the statistics. My approach to the analysis of the data is interpretive seeing that I will interpret the works and research by different scholars from a subjective standpoint. The literature used in this paper is on the subjects of education, education of English language learners and the question of language and bilingualism. I draw extensively on the book The Latino Education Crisis by Gándara and Contreras, 2009. The book is referenced by many researchers and the works of Gándara is highly acknowledged in the field of education literature. Another book referenced in this paper is Educating Emergent Bilinguals by García and Kleifgen, which is used to answer the second and third question of the problem statement. This book is also referenced by other scholars in the field of research on bilingualism. Other sources in this paper include reports by the PEW Hispanic Center, a highly accepted nonpartisan think tank that provides trustworthy information on social issues and demographic changes. I also use several research papers that investigate the issues of Latino education and the education of English language learners in order to investigate what approach is the best in order to educate English language learners and close the achievement gap.

1.3 Delimitation Seeing that Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the U.S., there is a burgeoning amount of research and debate about Hispanics and their position in American society.

Today the perhaps most polemical question is in relation to illegal immigration and immigration reform. This issue will not be explored in this paper. Neither will this paper look into the Hispanic group concerning the Hispanic electorate, their political affiliation or the Hispanics as a consumer group. As there are many different programs that try to help further Hispanic educational achievement, I will not go into detail with all programs. Neither will I write about affirmative action nor the effects of the No Child Left Behind. I have decided to focus mainly on the type of education given to Hispanic English learners. These programs include English-only immersion and bilingual education programs. The debate in the U.S. mostly revolves around these specific programs and many researchers have studied their effects. These programs are relevant to investigate, as it is also a political and ideological question of what should be the outcome of education for English learners and whether or not bilingualism is seen as an asset or a deficit when learning English. As many Hispanic students come from a Spanish-speaking home, education of English language learners can also be applied to them.

1.4 Structure In chapter 2 I will try to understand what is meant by the Latino Education Crisis. First, I will look at statistics for high school dropout rates and college completion. Then I will look at the various reasons for the low Hispanic educational achievement such as reasons related to family, community and school. In chapter 3 I will investigate a few of the programs that have been implemented, that have affected the Hispanic educational outcome and the effects of these. I will go into detail with English-only programs and bilingual programs in chapter 4 and try to investigate what program is the most effective. I will conclude my paper with a conclusion that answers the problem statement

1.5 Definition of Hispanics The U.S. Census bureau defines Hispanics as follows: “Hispanic or Latino” refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, p. 2). Hispanics can be of any race. Most Hispanics prefer to be classified as a variety of ethnic groups, instead of just one (Etzioni, 2002). However, for the purpose of this paper I have chosen to use the wide definition of Hispanics by the U.S. Census Bureau. The terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” will be used interchangeably.

1.6 History of Hispanic Migration and Hispanic Influence Hispanics are a very diverse group as they come from more than 20 different countries (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Some have come to the U.S. because of war or persecution, others in pursuit of a job and some were already in the country when the nation was founded. The Hispanic population has grown from 4 million in 1950 to 35.2 in 2000 (Rumbaut R. G., 2006) and 50.5 million in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The U.S. Census Bureau has projected that by 2050 there will be an estimated 103 million Hispanic people living in the U.S. and they will account for 25% of the population. Their social, cultural, political and economic impact is great and more profound because of large concentration in a few states (Rumbaut R. G., 2006). The history of Hispanic migration is long and dates back to before the nation was founded with Spanish settlers coming in 1513 (Rumbaut R. G., 2006). Mexicans are the largest and oldest of Hispanic ethnic groups in the U.S. The majority of Mexicans have come for work while others have been in the country since the annexation as part of the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War. Toward the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century Mexican labor was highly sought-after as they were sources of cheap labor. The period from 1965 to 1985 is labeled the era of undocumented migration (Rumbaut R.G., 2006). The bracero program functioned as a de facto guest worker program where many young male Mexican laborers were brought into the country legally. When the program ended, illegal immigration started (Rumbaut R. G., 2006). Puerto Ricans distinguish themselves from other Hispanics as they were granted U.S. citizenship in 1948 and can travel freely between the island and the mainland. In the 1950’s Puerto Ricans constituted the largest inflow of “immigrants” to the U.S. Most of them went looking for work and many settled in New York (Rumbaut R. G., 2006). The largest waves of Cuban immigrants came in the 1960’s where many exiles fled the island after the communist take-over. The U.S. welcomed the refugees and helped them flee. Many Cubans settled in Miami (Rumbaut R. G., 2006). Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans are the largest groups of Hispanics in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Countries with large immigration to the U.S. since the 1980’s include the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Guatemala (Balkaran, 2013). The presence of Hispanics has shaped America and will continue to do so. Both America’s socioeconomic and political future is tied to the future of Hispanic Americans. Hispanics’ political power is growing as the Hispanic electorate is increasing. Both political parties are redefining their political agenda as they are becoming increasingly aware of the power of the Hispanic vote (Balkaran, 2013). In the two previous presidential elections Hispanics played a vital role in electing Barack Obama. Furthermore, how both parties decide to handle the ongoing debate on immigration reform will have a serious impact on Hispanic political behavior and future presidential elections (Balkaran, 2013). Hispanics will also affect the prosperity of the

U.S. economy as it rests significantly on Hispanics’ buying power. This buying power is expected to be greater than that of whites, blacks and Asians over the next 18-year period (Balkaran, 2013). Hispanics have also had a large influence on American culture (Balkaran, 2013). Mexican food chain restaurants can be found all over the country and Hispanic artists have now become mainstream artists such as Ricky Martin and Jennifer Lopez. In Hollywood and the TV industry the Hispanic presence is also felt as for example the portrayal of Gloria in Modern Family. Even though the Hispanics have a clear and expanding influence, they are often marginalized and the surges of immigrants have spurred anti-immigrant movements. Some, as for example Huntington, say that Hispanics fail to assimilate into the American culture politically, educationally, socially and language wise. Instead, they maintain their own culture, thus creating two cultures inside the country instead of a united U.S. culture, or in other words an Anglo culture. Others see the Hispanic immigrants, both illegal and legal, as an economic burden on the native population. The debate surrounding bilingual education and English-only programs is highly polemical and was at its height in the 1990’s and 2000’s. One prominent flashpoint in the debate is the fear that Spanish will replace English. The general public, researchers and politicians do not agree on what is the best educational practice to teach English to English language learners. The debate is very much political and influenced by federal policy shifts, court rulings and state propositions. In 1981 Ronald Reagan said: “It is absolutely wrong and against the American concept to have a bilingual education program that is now openly, admittedly, dedicated to preserving their native language and never getting them adequate in English so they can go out into the job market.” (Clines, 1981). The history of the marginalization of Hispanics in the U.S., the history of educational policies for English language learners and fear of the nation divided into two languages is what have shaped public opinion on bilingual education. The debate is now more political and cultural rather than what is educationally sound for English language learners. The problems that Hispanics face as for example low educational attainment, lack of naturalization and low occupational status will affect the future of America if these problems are not solved. With the economic and political power of Hispanics, America’s future is closely tied to the future of Hispanics and the presence of Hispanics cannot be silenced or ignored.

2. Understanding the Hispanic Educational Achievement Gap In this chapter I will answer the first question of my problem statement: What are the reasons for the low educational attainment by American Hispanic minorities? First I will look at statistics. Thereafter, I will look at the family, school, segregation and community related reasons for the low Hispanic educational attainment.

2.1 Statistics for Hispanic Educational Attainment According to the Census Bureau, Hispanics constituted 25% of public school students nationwide in 2012 (Fry & Lopez, 2013). The majority of Hispanic public school students (84%) were born in the U.S. and more than half of all Hispanics were enrolled in public schools in only two states, Texas and California (Fry & Gonzales, 2008). In order to define Hispanics’ educational attainment, I will look at indicators which are commonly used in education literature: dropout rate, completion rate and college enrolment (Pew Hispanic Center, 2009). The dropout rate is the share of youths who have not received a high school diploma and are not enrolled in school or college (Pew Hispanic Center, 2009). The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 2011 the high school dropout rate for 16-to 24-year old Hispanics to be 14%. This is half the dropout rate of Hispanics in 2000 (28%). In comparison, in 2011 the high school dropout rate for black youths was 7% and 5% for whites (Fry & Taylor, 2013). The high dropout rate for young Hispanics is mainly due to the foreign born. In 2009 32.9% of the foreign-born Hispanics were high school dropouts, but only 9.9% of the native- born Hispanics, while the overall dropout rate for Hispanics was 17%. The dropout rate for native-born Hispanics was similar to the rate of blacks, but still almost double the rate of whites (Pew Hispanic Center, 2009). The completion rate measures the high school completion rate for youths ages 18 to 24. Statistics from March 2009 showed that 77.2% of Hispanic youths had graduated high school (Pew Hispanic Center, 2009), an increase from 64% in 2000 (Fry & Taylor, 2013). However, Latinos are still trailing behind the rate of all youths completing high school with a rate of 89.7%. The foreign born Latinos are also the prime explanation that the completion rate for all Hispanics is below average. The completion rate for foreign-born Hispanics is only 60.3%, whereas the rate for native-born Hispanics is 87%. This is closer to the average. It is, however, still lower the rate of whites, which is 93.5% (Pew Hispanic Center, 2009). The college enrollment rate is the share of those who have finished high school and are enrolled in college (Pew Hispanic Center, 2009). The first year a greater share of recent Hispanic high school graduates enrolled in college than whites was 2013. According to the Census bureau 49% of 18-to 24-year old Hispanics who had graduated high school were enrolled in college, and 47% of whites. However, since

Hispanics have a higher high school dropout rate, only 37.5% of all Hispanics are enrolled in college compared to 42.1% of whites (Fry & Lopez, 2013). Despite more Hispanics enrolled in college, they are still lagging behind other groups. Hispanic college students are less likely than whites to enroll in a four-year college, to attend a selective college, to be enrolled in college full time and to complete a bachelor’s degree (Fry & Taylor, 2013).

2.2 Reasons for Low Hispanic Educational Attainment The reasons for low Hispanic educational attainment are multiple and diverse seeing that the Hispanic group is of different origins, of different generations in America and of different socioeconomic status. I will therefore give a broad explanation to some of the general reasons for the low educational attainment.

2.2.1 Family Related Reasons Five risk factors can place a child at risk of not succeeding academically: poverty, a single-parent household, a mother unmarried at the time of the child’s birth, a mother with less than a high school education, a primary language other than English. Hispanic children are more likely than white and Asian children to experience two or more of these risk factors (Gándara & Contreras, 2009, p. 67). Poverty: Hispanic children are far more likely to live in poverty than white children. According to the Census Bureau 28% of Hispanics under the age of 18 lived in poverty compared to only 14% of whites in 2005 (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Family structure: There are two risk factors related to family structure: a single-parent household and a mother unmarried at the time of the child’s birth. Births out of wedlock are increasing at a faster rate for Hispanics than other ethnic groups. Studies also show that Hispanic children are less likely to live with both biological parents. Single-parent-homes are of concern because single-parent women are more likely to be poor and to experience depression and stress, which are factors that affect the child’s development (Gándara & Contreras, 2009, p. 67). Living in a family with both biological parents reduces the probability of dropping out to only 5%, positively affects the child’s GPA and motivates the child to pursue a higher education (Rumbaut & Portes, 2001). Parental education: According to the U.S. Department of Education, “children’s academic performance increases as a function of its mothers’ education across all ethnic groups” ( cited in Gándara & Contreras, 2009, p. 19). Even modest differences in a parent’s educational level can make a big difference in the child’s future educational attainment (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Parental education is crucial as it is tied to class, and class privilege is tied to social and cultural capital. Cultural capital is to know how things work. Social capital is to have access to important social networks such as informed colleagues and friends. This knowledge is essential in order to help a student succeed academically. Hispanic parents with a low educational level have less cultural and social capital to pass on to their children. They know less about how

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis the American school system works and which courses prepare the child for college. Middle-class parents have a clear advantage as they have much more cultural and social capital to aid their children in their education (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Language: 70% of Hispanic students speak a language other than English at home (Fry & Gonzales, 2008). Spanish-speaking parents tend to be less educated and are more likely to be poor (Schneider, Martinez, & Owens, 2006). An important factor in determining a child’s success in school is the level of parent participation in a child’s education before entering kindergarten. Reading to children is proved to enhance children’s language acquisition, reading ability and later success in school. Hispanic parents who only speak Spanish are less likely to read to their children. As a consequence, this will result in the Hispanic children already trailing behind the white children when entering school (Schneider, Martinez, & Owens, 2006). Another issue that hinders young Hispanics in finishing high school and getting a college education is financial commitments to their family. Young Hispanics are more likely to have financial commitments to support their family, either in the U.S. or in their country of origin. This results in young Hispanics either dropping out of high school or not pursuing a college education (Lopez, 2009). A survey has showed that Hispanics know less about their options for financial aid than other ethnic groups. As a consequence, young Hispanics do not apply for college or choose to go to a two-year community college instead of a four-year selective, which in turn limits the possibility of finishing college (Gándara & Contreras, 2009).

2.2.2 School Related Reasons Hispanics are more likely to go to schools that are highly segregated, where resources are weaker, teachers less skilled and classes overcrowded as well as being assigned to classes where standards are lower (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). The schools highly influence the academic achievement of its students. Gándara and Contreras list in their book The Latino Education Crisis (2009) a number of school related issues that result in young Hispanics not receiving an equitable education and performing lower academically. No preschool: Brain researchers have found that preschool is crucial to the intellectual development of the child. However, most Latino children do not attend preschool. In turn, Hispanic children lag behind academically when they start school (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Inadequate school facilities: Schools in California and Texas, which have a large Hispanic student body, are underfunding education. Poor schooling conditions lead to difficulty in learning and high teacher turnover (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Inadequate curriculum and instructional offerings: Two problems are linked to this issue. The first is grouping by ability. In elementary school, children are grouped by their reading ability and those in the low- level reading group will read less material. Many Hispanic students are placed in low-level curriculum

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis groups, whereas students with college educated parents will be in high-level curriculum groups. This classification happens even when the test scores of the students from different socioeconomic backgrounds are identical. When the Hispanic student is in the low-level curriculum, it is hard to change groups and catch up with the other group as the curriculum is less extensive and the teachers expect less of them (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). The second problem is that the high school determines whether a student can take college preparation courses. The schools that serve middle- and high-income students have 50% more Advanced Placement courses than the schools that serve low-income students. When Hispanic students do not get access to college preparatory courses, they are not able to meet college requirements (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Furthermore, because of the low educational level of Hispanic parents, the students do not know what consequences taking specific courses have for college options (Schneider, Martinez, & Owens, 2006). Inadequate teachers: Studies show a clear relationship between the quality of teachers and the students’ achievement. Hispanic students are more likely to attend schools with low-quality teachers. Teachers unconsciously affect their students’ achievement through their expectations of the students (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Teachers can both motivate students to do better (Conchas, Oseguera, & Vigil, 2012) as well as diminish motivation and engagement in school by their perception of the student’s ability. Unfortunately some teachers base their perception of a student’s ability on the student’s ethnicity (Schneider, Martinez, & Owens, 2006). Another problem is that the lack of Hispanic teachers (Gándara & Contreras, 2009) leads to teacher’s not being able to understand the Hispanic students’ social background. This also makes it harder for Hispanic students to identify with their teachers and see them as role models (Schneider, Martinez, & Owens, 2006).

2.2.3 Segregation and Other Community Related Reasons Hispanic students are more segregated both in the community and at the school level. Community contexts and resources are important factors in relation to the success of the students. Segregation in the neighborhood results in the social and cultural capital among the families to not increase over time (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Children need role models and neighborhoods can provide them with such. The role model needs to be an example of educational and occupational success and can help guide and support the children in the community towards a similar future, when parents cannot do so. However, Hispanic children often lack such role models as they tend to live in low-income communities, where few people have succeeded academically. Segregation in Hispanic communities also result in lack of peer support for school achievement as there is a culture of low achievement among young Latinos (Gándara & Contreras, 2009).

Segregation at the school level also has severe consequences for Hispanic students. Hispanics tend to go to school with students from the same ethnic group. In turn, they become isolated as they do not interact with majority students and are not exposed to different aspirations and expectations of other ethnic groups (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Another effect of segregation is that it limits the possibility for Hispanic English Learners to practice and interact in English and thereby slows the acquisition of English (Gándara & Contreras, 2009).

2.2.4 Low Aspirations Another reason for the low educational attainment for Hispanics is low aspirations. Many studies have shown that Hispanic students have lower expectations after high school than other ethnic groups as they tend to know less about their possibilities and financial aid, and do not think it possible to get a college degree (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). In today’s globalized world a college degree is a prerequisite for belonging to the middle class (Gándara & Contreras, 2009), but when Hispanics fail to graduate college, socioeconomic mobility is almost impossible.

2.3 Sub Conclusion The Latino education problem can be defined by three factors: high high school dropout rate, low high school completion rate and low college enrollment rate. Although the dropout rate for Hispanics has decreased substantially and the completion rate has increased, the rates are still significantly lower than other ethnic groups. This is mainly due to the foreign born Hispanics. The college enrollment rate for Hispanics was in 2013 higher than that of whites. However, Hispanics are still less likely to enroll in a four year institution and complete a bachelor’s degree. Reasons for the Latino educational achievement gap are family related, school related, community related and due to low aspirations. Family related reasons include poverty, financial responsibilities, language other than English spoken in the home and low educational level of Hispanic parents. School related reasons include no preschool, inadequate school facilities, inadequate curriculum and instructional offerings, and inadequate teachers. Finally, community related reasons include segregation and lack of community role models. As a result, educational success is harder to achieve for Hispanics.

3. Programs that Respond to the Latino Education Crisis In this chapter I will answer the second question of my problem statement: What is being and has been done to improve the educational achievement of Hispanic students? The programs that respond to the Hispanic achievement gap are multiple and diverse as the problem cannot only be ascribed to one single reason. Seeing that there are many programs, I will give a brief overview of some of the programs, both federal and nongovernmental programs, which operate at different times during public schooling.

3.1 Preschool Program - Head Start As many Hispanic children do not attend preschool, they will already be academically behind their white peers when they start kindergarten. Therefore, early intervention is crucial. Head Start is one of the few federal programs that exist and it seeks to help low-income and minority children. It is implemented throughout the nation. The primary goal is to prepare underprivileged children for school. Focus is on health education and services, and pre-academic skills. Head Start programs have shown to have small positive effects on pre-writing, vocabulary and child literacy skills for 3-to 4-year olds as well as increasing the time parents use with their children on educational activities. Even though some studies have found Head Start to increase cognitive scores, these effects are usually lost by the end of first grade. Most argue this to be caused by public schools failing to sustain the initial gains made by the program (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Therefore, Head Start has not showed to have any long term effect on Hispanic educational achievement.

3.2 K-8 Program – Success for All Success for All focuses on the earlier grades and targets both the achievement of the individual as well as whole school reform. It operates in 48 states. The program tries to enhance literacy, mathematical, scientific, listening and social skills from first to sixth grade. The program collaborates with parents, students, school staff and teachers. It also tries to give better resources and preparation to teachers in order for them to raise the achievement of the students. Success for All has both a bilingual English-Spanish curriculum as well as an English-only curriculum. A comparative study of the two curriculums found additional achievement advantages for the students who attended the Success for All bilingual program. An evaluation of Success for All from 2002 showed that the students scored higher on reading and math standardized exams (Gándara & Contreras, 2009).

3.3 Mother-Daughter Programs Mother-Daughter programs are programs that prepare and guide young Hispanic female students to enroll in college. Arizona State University Hispanic Mother-Daughter Program is an example of this type of

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis program. The program works with the mother and daughter from eight through twelfth grade and their services include academic advice, workshops and tours of the university campus. A similar program at the University of Texas had positive outcomes and found that participants were less likely to drop out of school or get pregnant, as well as being more likely to take Advanced Placement courses and earn higher grades. The large majority of students participating in the longitudinal study went to college (Nuñez, Hoover, Pickett, Vazquez, & Stuart-Carruthers, 2012).

3.4 Puente The Puente program is a community-based program that focuses on Hispanic students. The goal of the program is to prepare Hispanics for college. The program includes three elements: a two-year intensive college-preparatory English class, personal counseling and mentoring. The two-year English class has emphasis on Hispanic literature, sociopolitical circumstances and intensive writing instruction. The mentors and counselors in the program are typically Hispanics with the same background as the students. This allows them to be role models for the Hispanic students (Gándara & Contreras, 2009), (Nuñez, Hoover, Pickett, Vazquez, & Stuart-Carruthers, 2012). The Puente program works together with high schools and help them provide and develop high-quality teachers. A comprehensive evaluation of the Puente program found Puente students to have lower dropout rates, have a higher desire to be a good student, be better prepared for college and be enrolled in college at double the rate of the control students. The Puente program did not have an effect on GPA, but it doubled the rate of students attending four-year colleges (Gándara & Contreras, 2009).

3.5 Sub Conclusion The Latino education crisis is a complex problem. Therefore, there is not solely one program that responds to the problem. Head Start, a federal sponsored program, is a program for pre-kindergarten low-income children. The effects of the program are not long- term. Success for All is a non-governmental program that works with children in grades 1 to 6 on increasing their literacy, mathematical and scientific skills. Students from Success for All have been found to do better on reading and math standardized exams. Mother- Daughter programs prepare Hispanic female students for college. The program at the University of Texas resulted in students being less likely to drop out of school and get pregnant, more likely to take AP courses and earn higher grades. The Puente program also tries to increase the college-going rate for Hispanics. The program has showed to be successful in this aspect.

4. English-only Immersion and Bilingual Education In this chapter I will further try to answer the second as well as the third question of my problem statement: What is being and has been done to improve the educational achievement of Hispanic students? What are the effects of these programs and educational reforms to Hispanic education? I will do so by looking at two practices: English-only immersion and Bilingual Education. First, I will give a short history of the teaching of English to English language learners (ELLs), then I will describe each of the practices and go on to discuss the educational outcomes and effects of the programs, in order to come to a conclusion which is most successful. English-only immersion and bilingual education are mostly used to educate ELLs to teach them English. However, bilingual education can also be used to educate young Hispanics who are not specifically ELLs. Seeing that many Hispanics grow up in a Spanish-speaking household, bilingual education can also benefit them. There is considerable polemic and controversy surrounding theses two educational practices. Many conservatives are against bilingual education, because they fear it hinders or slows the acquisition of English. The question of what educational practice is best to teach English to ELLs has turned into a political debate more than an educational, and depends on whether the knowledge of Spanish is seen as an asset or a handicap.

4.1 Short History of the Teaching of English Language Learners The Bilingual Education Act of 1968, Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, came in the wake of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The goal of the Act was to assist limited English-speaking students to acquire English as quickly as possible, in order for them to move on to mainstream classrooms (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Congress gave financial assistance to school districts, so the districts could carry out practices that assisted ELLs (García & Kleifgen, 2010). At first, the act only included poor students. However, with the reauthorization of the Bilingual Education Act in 1974, the educational services were offered to all students with limited English-speaking abilities, no matter the socioeconomic status (García & Kleifgen, 2010). The Bilingual Education Act of 1964 was relatively weak as it only provided the schools with limited guidelines, so the actual implementation of the programs was left to the individual schools (Handbook of Latinos and Education, 2010). The Act did not require bilingual education. However, in the 1970’s many states responded to the Act by passing laws that mandated bilingual education programs for ELLs (Chin, Daysal, & Imberman, 2012). The Supreme Court ruling in Lau v. Nichols in 1974 became important in support for bilingual education. The court stated that the schools should not only provide ELLs with the same curriculum and facilities as English-speaking students. However, the court did not offer guidelines as to how equitable education to ELLs could be obtained. Instead, the Federal Office of Civil Rights was called upon to provide the guidelines. These guidelines were to be known as the Lau Remedies, 1975. It instructed school districts to give bilingual

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis education to ELLs at the elementary level and English as a second language programs at the secondary level. The guidelines were later withdrawn in 1981 by the Reagan Administration (García & Kleifgen, 2010). In 1978 Congress stated that bilingual education was only to be used in order for ELLs to achieve proficiency in English and it was not to be used to achieve literacy in the students’ primary language. This statement led many schools to stop using bilingual education (Gándara & Contreras, 2009) and with the reauthorization of the Bilingual Education Act in 1984, it opened up for the funding of English-only programs (García & Kleifgen, 2010). In the 1990’s anti bilingual political campaigns were mounted first in California, and then in Arizona, Colorado and Massachusetts. Never before had the voting public had to vote on an educational strategy (Handbook of Latinos and Education, 2010). California Proposition 227 was passed in 1998 and came in the wake of the public discontent with the bilingual education of ELLs in California public schools. The proposition restricted the use of Spanish in the classroom and ELLs were to be taught in English. They would be placed in an English-only immersion class for one year, but were after that required to join a mainstream class. Similar initiatives were passed in Arizona, 2003, and in Massachusetts, 2002. It was, however, stopped in Colorado, where voters voted no because a successful counter initiative campaign was launched against the proposition (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Education policy has changed dramatically over the past four decades, from bilingual education to English- only education. The recent shift has to do with misinformation and lack of knowledge in the public about bilingual education, and “cultural politics that has little to do with what is educationally sound for the students” (García & Kleifgen, 2010, p. 28). The current tensions in Latino education are due to the historical process of numerous court decisions and shifts in federal policy. The equality of education for Hispanics has not been well protected by federal policy. In turn, this has created more restrictive and oppressive local policies as seen in the case of California, Arizona and Massachusetts, where the notion language seen as a resource is unrecognized (Handbook of Latinos and Education, 2010, p. 406).

4.2 English-only Education There are different types of models for teaching English to ELLs mainly using English, also called English as a second language (ESL) programs. The goal of the programs is linguistic assimilation (proficiency in English). The programs are: submersion, ESL Pull Out, ESL Push-in and structured immersion (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Submersion, also called “sink or swim”, is where schools provide the ELLs with the same educational services as they provide monolingual speakers. The ELLs are put in mainstream classes where all instruction is in English. The teachers are not qualified for teaching ELLs. This approach was mainly used in the 1970’s. However, it is still used in many parts of the country (García & Kleifgen, 2010).

ESL Pull Out is 90-100% taught in English. The students are in a mainstream classroom, but are pulled out of their mainstream classes 30-45 minutes a day in order to receive ESL instruction (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Because the students are pulled out of their classroom, they lose valuable instruction time, which their mainstream monolingual peers, on the other hand, receive. The primary focus of this program is on grammar, vocabulary, reading, speaking and writing in English. Although this model is the most implemented, it is also the least effective model and the most expensive to operate (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004). In ESL Push-in programs, ELLs are placed in a mainstream classroom. Instead of being pulled out of classes to receive ESL instruction, the ESL teacher is pushed into the mainstream classroom and works with the subject teacher (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Structured English immersion is where students are grouped for instruction. The program is tailored to the needs of ELLs. After 1 to 3 years in a structured English immersion class, they are expected to assimilate into a mainstream classroom. This model is less successful for ELLs’ long-term academic achievement, than the students who receive instruction in their native language (García & Kleifgen, 2010), (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004). Problems with all these programs are that while ELLs are learning English, they are not given instruction in their native language in other subjects in order to keep up academically with their monolingual peers. As a result, they fall behind in other subjects, which create an achievement gap (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004). Another point of critique is that the programs do not take into account how long it takes to develop cognitive Academic Language Proficiency. Research shows that it takes 5 to 7 years to become fully proficient in another language. The English-only programs provided to ELLs do not give enough time for them to become academically proficient in English (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Proponents of English-only programs argue that English-only programs are the most effective way to teach English to ELLs. They also claim that by using other languages than English, the nation will tear apart politically as English is what unites the multicultural U.S. However, seeing that English is a valuable economic asset and all immigrants want to learn it, the fear that bilingual education will divide the nation into two languages has little ground in reality (Gándara & Contreras, 2009).

4.2.1 Proposition 227 in California California Proposition 227 is an example of a structured English immersion program. The student is in the program for one year and thereafter assimilates into a mainstream English classroom. There is a parental waiver process, so if the parents request it, the student can be placed in a bilingual program (Handbook of Latinos and Education, 2010, pp. 407-408).

The long-term effects of the proposition have not been positive. An analysis of graduation rates in 2004 from Los Angeles City schools showed that 73% of the ELLs who were enrolled in ninth grade in 2000 did not graduate with their class (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Supporters of the proposition argue that the program has been successful as test score rose in the following years. However, the test scores rose for all students, presumably because of reduction in class sizes, better teachers and increased investment in education. Nevertheless, the achievement gap between ELLs and native English speakers have stayed the same (Gándara & Contreras, 2009), even though the implementation of Proposition 227 was supposed to reduce the gap.

4.3 Bilingual Education There are different types of bilingual programs operating in the U.S. They defer from English-only programs in that the students’ native language is used for instruction, in order for the students to learn English. The programs vary in duration and amount of Spanish and English used in instruction. With bilingual education, students are able to stay on grade level in other subjects while acquiring English proficiency (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Transitional bilingual programs use the native language of the students as a temporary bridge to English- only instruction. Students gradually exit the transitional program and enter mainstream English-only classes. There are two types of transitional bilingual programs: early-exit and late-exit. Early-exit transitional bilingual programs last 1 to 3 years and usually end by second grade. Initial instruction is given in the native language, but quickly phased out. A late-exit transitional bilingual program, also called developmental program, last from kindergarten through sixth grade. Initial instruction is 90% in the native language, but by fourth grade it will have decreased to 50%. Other programs use 50/50 instruction from the beginning. Early-exit transitional programs are the least effective bilingual program as students are emerged into mainstream classrooms before they are fully proficient in academic English (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004), (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Students in early-exit programs do not develop proficiency in the native language and do not develop any long-term cognitive benefits (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010). Researchers, as Thomas and Collier, 2002, have found students in early-exit transitional programs to be doing better academically than students in ESL Pull Out programs, but trailing academically behind the students in late-exit developmental programs and two-way bilingual programs (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004). Students in late-exit programs do develop stronger bilingual and biliteracy skills. However, many students lose these skills as a result of bilingual education not being continued in upper elementary grades (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010). Two-way bilingual immersion (TWI) has a different goal than transitional bilingual programs and English- only programs: bilingualism and biliteracy as well as promoting language equity. The students both acquire

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis academic language proficiency in English while maintaining proficiency in their native language. Most programs end after sixth grade, but a few also persists through twelfth grade. The instructional time in TWI programs varies. However, there are two common models: 90/10 and 50/50. The programs incorporate both ELLs and English speakers into the same classroom and both groups come out bilingual. By this means, TWI is an inclusive model as it does not segregate the ELLs from the majority students (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004). TWI creates equal status environments and can promote positive intergroup relationships, reduce prejudice and promote cross-cultural awareness and friendships (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010). However, an important critique of TWI is that it ignores the preexisting inequalities in social status that exist between the minority and the majority students (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Other bilingual and TWI program challenges include dependence on support from stakeholders, benefits differing for individual students, challenge to function within a hostile social and political environment and challenge to educate students of different SES (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010). Despite challenges to TWI programs, research shows this type of program to be perhaps the most efficient program for ELLs (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004). English students in TWI programs learn to have more positive attitudes towards non-English languages and cultures (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). This is a crucial asset to possess in a multicultural and multilingual U.S. and a globalized world. A study by Thomas and Collier, 1997 (cited in Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004) found six factors that need to be present in order for a TWI program to be successful: “1) Students participate for at least 6 years; 2) There is a balanced ratio of speakers of each language; 3) A separation of language exists for instructional purposes ; 4) Emphasis is on the minority language in the early grades; 5) Core academics are emphasized as well as instructional excellence; and 6) Parents have a positive relationship with the program” (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004, p. 39). In 2001 Lindholm-Leary added three more factors to the list: “(a) effective leadership and support by administrators and instructors; (b) a positive environment composed of an additive bilingual environment; and (c) high-quality instructional personnel and staff training” (Lara-Alecio, Galloway, Irby, Rodriguez, & Gómez, 2004, p. 39). If all these factors are not present, the two-way program will not have successful outcomes. When advocating bilingual education, it is important to consider the benefits that comes from being bilingual. Cognitive benefits include a greater metalinguistic awareness (knowing two language systems result in a more analytic approach to language), more creative thinking (bilinguals have two ways of describing the world) and more communicative sensitivity (bilingual children are used to evaluating communicative situations) (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Another important benefit is linguistic interdependence. Students who are proficient in one language can transfer this knowledge to the other

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis language, which will result in greater academic achievement in the second language (Genesee, Lindholm- Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005). This linguistic interdependence is stronger when languages share lingustic feautures, which is the case with Spanish and English (García & Kleifgen, 2010). According to Gándara and Contreras (2009) “learning is most efficient when it builds on prior learning, and knowledge acquired in one language is transferred to other languages once the corresponding vocabulary and linguistic structures have been learned” (p. 309). Other benefits of bilingual education are the economic advantages. As we live in a global world, the adaptability and flexibility that bilinguals posess will allow them to be able to do bussiness with other nations in that nation’s native language, and also have a deeper understanding of the culture surrounding that language (Varghese & Park, 2010). Proponents of bilingual education argue that instruction in Spanish, while acquiring English proficiency is the best way to learn English while not trailing behind in other subjects. This puts emphasis on general academic achievement, rather than only focusing on the acquisition of English (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Opponents, on the other hand, say that instruction in the native language delays English language acquisition (Slavin, Madden, Calderón, Chamberlain, & Hennessy, 2010). The Lobby organization ProEnglish opposes bilingual education as they argue that it fails to teach students English language and literacy, and segregates by language. This results in social isolation and may contribute to high dropout rates. They also argue that bilingual education does not lead to faster or better acquisition of English, better learning of school subjects and does not enhance the students’ self-esteem (ProEnglish, n.d.).

4.4. Effectiveness and Outcomes of English-Only and Bilingual Programs and Sub Conclusion Much research has been done on different programs for ELLs in order to decide which program is most effective. Around the world, researchers generally agree that the use of a student’s native language in schooling results in higher long-term academic achievement. On the other hand, research in the U.S. comparing the different programs, can be seen as contradictory as the discourse surrounding bilingual education is more political than considering what is educationally sound for the ELLs, which has affected research outcomes. However, much research conducted in the U.S. supports bilingual education over monolingual education (García & Kleifgen, 2010). An example of a large-scale evaluation is the research conducted by Ramírez from 1992 (cited in García & Kleifgen, 2010, p. 47). The research involved 554 kindergartners from five states, including California and Texas, which he followed up to sixth grade in structured English immersion, early-exit transitional bilingual program and late-exit developmental bilingual program. The research found the late-exit developmental biligual program to be more effective, where the native language was used for 5 to 6 years. No difference

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis could be found between programs by third grade, but by sixth grade the students in late-exit developmental programs did better in mathematics, English language arts and English reading than students in the other programs. Thomas and Collier released a longitudinal study in 2002. It is one of the most extensive studies ever done and highly acclaimed among researchers in the field of the education of ELLs. The study explored the effectiveness of eight different types of programs for ELLs. The programs included in the study were 90/10 and 50/50 two-way bilingual education, 90/10 and 50/50 late-exit developmental program, 90/10 and 50/50 early-exit transitional program, ESL and submersion. The study included 210,054 students from five different school districts over the country and included both newly arrived immigrants and students with a Spanish-speaking heritage. The study found submersion to be the program that had the largest number of dropouts. Those who remained in school and finished eleventh grade were behind students in all other programs in both English reading and math. The study found that 90/10 and 50/50 developmental bilingual programs and two-way bilingual programs were the only programs where students reached the 50th percentile in both their primary language and English in all subjects. The fewest dropouts also came from these programs. In conclusion, students who received bilingual education outperformed students who received English-only education. The 90/10 bilingual programs were more effective than the 50/50 bilingual programs. The study also found that the native English speakers in the TWI program did equally or better than their monolingually schooled comparisons. When looking at students with low socioeconomic status (SES) the study ascertained that TWI was better at reducing the negative effects of SES than students who had received English-only instruction. The strongest predictor of student achievement in the second language was found to be the amount of formal schooling in the students’ primary language. The students who had received bilingual education for 4-7 years outperformed comparable monolingually schooled students in academic achievement in all subjects. The ELLs in English-only programs initially outperformed the bilingually schooled students. However, by middle school, the students receiving bilingual education did as well as the monolingually schooled students and during the high school years they outperformed them. Thomas and Collier concluded that short-term, remedial and ineffective programs are not successful in closing the achievement gap and should be avoided (Thomas & Collier, 2002). By saying that, they are suggesting that the education provided to ELLs by Proposition 227 is not effective as it is short-term and remedial. In 2006 Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders and Christian published a synthesis of research evidence in the education of ELLs. They found that “almost all evaluations conducted at the end of elementary school and in middle and high school showed that the educational outcomes of bilingually educated students,

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis especially in late-exit and two-way programs, were at least comparable to, and usually higher than, their comparison peers” (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005, p. 375). The study also found most long-term studies to report that the longer the students stayed in the bilingual programs the better outcomes in reading, math, GPA, better attendance, higher high school completion and better attitudes toward school and self. The students in late-exit and two-way bilingual programs outperformed the students who only received short-term instruction in their native language. The study also found bilingual proficiency and biliteracy to be positively related to academic achievement in both languages as bilingual Hispanic students had higher achievement scores, GPAs, and expectations to their education than their monolingual English-speaking Hispanic peers (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005). A recent study by Marian, Shook and Schroeder from 2013 found that “bilingual Two-Way Immersion (TWI) programs benefited both minority-language and majority-language students. Minority-language students in TWI programs outperformed their peers in Transitional Programs of Instruction, while majority-language students in Two-Way Immersion outperformed their peers in Mainstream monolingual classrooms” (Marian, Shook, & Schroeder, 2013, p. 167). They also found that TWI enhanced reading and math skills in English for both English and Spanish speakers. All the programs analyzed in the study followed the same curriculum, but only differed in language of instruction (Marian, Shook, & Schroeder, 2013). In conclusion, evidence suggests that the two-way bilingual programs are the most effective. They best reduce the negative effects of low socioeconomic status, which many Hispanics students suffer under, it is a long-term program, which has showed to best increase school performance, and students in this program outperformed students in other programs in almost all studies conducted. The arguments of the opponents of bilingual education are refuted seeing that two-way bilingual programs do not segregate by language or ethnicity as it is an inclusive model. Bilingual programs lead to as fast acquisition of English as structured English immersion programs (Slavin, Madden, Calderón, Chamberlain, & Hennessy, 2010) and the argument that it slows the acquisition of English is thereby refuted. In addition, bilingual education does lead to better learning of school subject, seeing that it builds on prior knowledge. The perhaps most important finding is the fact that bilingual Hispanic students had higher achievement scores, GPAs, and expectations to their education than their monolingual English-speaking Hispanic peers. Seeing that many Hispanics students become monolingual English speakers, it suggests that if Hispanics who grow up in the U.S. become bilingual, it will raise the overall achievement scores of Hispanics and thereby result in higher Hispanic educational achievement. Nationwide implementation of two-way bilingual programs is not very likely or very possible, seeing that not all local schools will be able to implement it, as not all language majority communities wish to have their children schooled bilingually and with Hispanics students (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Other reasons for not implementing the program include language attitudes, the

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis perception that it is more expensive to operate these programs and the lack of qualified teachers (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010). However, where it is possible to implement these programs, the evidence would suggest that it will be a good idea to do so. Bilingualism and biculturalism encourage Hispanic students to keep their cultural heritage while being part of the American society and it does not push Hispanic students to shed their language. Evidence from a study conducted by Rumberger and Tran also “support the argument that state policies and school practices restricting the use of native-language instruction could limit the ability of states and schools to reduce the EL achievement gap” (Rumberger & Tran, 2010, p. 100). Language restrictive policies do not, as the goal of initial implementation promised, reduce the achievement gap. In a country where these policies are prevalent and thriving, this suggests that a move away from these policies is necessary, in order to close the achievement gap between Hispanics and other ethnic groups.

5. Conclusion The Latino education crisis is undeniable and cannot be ignored. Hispanics have a high high school dropout rate, a low high school completion rate as well as a low college completion rate. Although the rates have improved over the last 10 years, Hispanics are still lagging behind other ethnic groups. The achievement gap can be attributed to many factors and the reasons are family related, school related and community related. Combining all of these reasons makes educational success for Hispanics much more challenging and exigent. There are many different programs and policies that have tried to respond to the crisis, in order to improve the educational achievement for Hispanics. A few of these programs are federal, however, most programs responding to the Latino crisis are non-governmental. The highly implemented programs do not specifically try to help Hispanic students, but help low-income students of all ethnicities. Since Hispanics have many risk factors, the programs responding to the Hispanic achievement gap need to take all of these risk factors as well as reasons for low Hispanic educational attainment into account, when implementing a program specifically designed to help Hispanic students. It is a known fact that there are many disparities in the U.S. educational system and since many Hispanic students attend highly segregated and underfunded public schools, Hispanics suffer under these disparities. Therefore, programs are not sufficient in order to decrease the Hispanic achievement gap. This would suggests that federal and state funding should also be increased in order to improve school facilities, school curriculum and instructional offerings, as well as providing better prepared and equipped teachers. Another issue of improvement would be to create less segregated schools, so Hispanic students can get more social and cultural capital knowledge from majority students. Research has proven that English-only policies in California and other states, which were supposed to reduce the achievement gap, have failed to do so. The debate surrounding English-only or bilingual policies has been highly political rather than acknowledging the major research findings, that have found bilingual education to not hinder the acquisition of English. In turn, bilingual programs, especially TWI programs, have been found to have the best academic results for Hispanics. Bilingual students have higher achievement scores, GPAs, and expectations to their education than their monolingual English-speaking Hispanic peers. This is an important finding as it suggests that if more Hispanics were taught bilingually, the achievement gap would decrease and more Hispanic students would gain educational success. Responding to the Latino education crisis is crucial. Therefore, programs and policies need to be implemented to improve the educational achievement of Hispanics. However, ignoring the cognitive and social benefits of bilingual education, and the educational gains made by bilingually taught Hispanics hinders the potential Hispanic educational success and contributes to sustaining the low Hispanic

of 31 Mariane N. Pedersen The Latino Education Crisis in the U.S. May 2014 MP94037/302764 Bachelor Thesis educational achievement. Ignoring the benefits of bilingual education has much to do with the fear of the U.S. being divided into two languages as well as the prejudice and the marginalization of Hispanics. The evidence found in this paper suggests that federal policies on bilingual education should be implemented and that state policy programs that are short-term and remedial, such as Proposition 227, should be rejected. These policies do not lead to faster acquisition of English, they harm the acquisition of knowledge in other subjects and have the worst academic results. Changing the public and political view on bilingual education will not happen overnight. However, the growing implementation of TWI programs in the U.S. (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010) suggests that in some places people are realizing the benefits of bilingualism. The findings of this paper suggest that further implementation of effective and quality bilingual programs could seemingly decrease the Hispanic educational achievement gap and raise the educational gains made by Hispanics. Reducing the Hispanic achievement gap is crucial in order to secure the future of Hispanics in the U.S. as well as securing the economic future of the nation itself. Consequently, the U.S. cannot continue to ignore the Latino education crisis as it will have devastating results.

6. Bibliography Balkaran, S. (2013, October 21). What would America be like without Hispanics? The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education , 24 (2), pp. 15-17. Bedolla, L. G. (2012, March). Latino Education, Civic Engagement, and the Public Good. Review of Research in Education , 36 (1), pp. 23-42. DOI: 10.3102/0091732X11422666

Chin, A., Daysal, N. M., & Iberman, S. A. (2012, June). Impact of Bilingual Education Programs on Limited English Proficient Student and Their Peers: Regression Discontinuity Evidence From Texas. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from The National Bureau of Economic Research: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18197 Clines, F. X. (1981, March 3). Reagan defends cuts in budget and asks for help of mayors. The New York Times. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from www.nytimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/03/us/reagan- defends-cuts-in-budget-and-asks-for-help-of-mayors.html?ref=ronaldwilsonreagan

Conchas, G. Q., Oseguera, L., & Vigil, J. D. (2012, March 10). Acculturation and School Success: Understanding the Variability of Mexican American Youth Adaptation Across Urban and Suburban Contexts. The Urban Review , 44 (4), pp. 401-422. DOI 10.1007/s11256-012-0197-2 Etzioni, A. (2002, Winter). Inventing Hispanics. The Brookings Review , 20 (1), pp. 10-13. Retrieved 1 March, 2014 from Proquest: http://search.proquest.com.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk:2048/docview/195568958? accountid=14468 Excelencia in Education. (2012, April 10). Excelencia in Education releases new research on Latino college completion in each of 50 states to inform action. Washington, Press release.Retrieved 1 March, 2014 from Excelencia in Education: http://www.edexcelencia.org/media/press-releases/excelencia-education- releases-new-research-latino-college-completion-each-50-0

Fry, R., & Gonzales, F. (2008, August 26). One-in-Five and Growing Fast: A Profile of Hispanic Public School Students. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from Pew Hispanic Center: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/08/26/one-in-five-and-growing-fast-a-profile-of-hispanic- public-school-students/ Fry, R., & Lopez, M. H. (2013, September 4). Among recent high school grads, Hispanic college enrollment rate surpasses that of whites. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/04/hispanic-college- enrollment-rate-surpasses-whites-for-the-first-time/ Fry, R., & Taylor, P. (2013, May 9). Hispanic High School Graduates Pass Whites in Rate of College Enrollment. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from Pew Hispanic Center: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/09/hispanic-high-school-graduates-pass-whites-in- rate-of-college-enrollment/ Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (Eds.). (2010). Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating Emergent Bilinguals: Policies, Programs, and Practices for English Language Learners. New York: Teachers College Press. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English Language Learners in U.S. Schools: An Overview of Research Findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) , 10 (4), pp. 363-385. DOI: 10.1207/s15327671espr1004_2 Huntington, S. P. (2004). The Hispanic Challenge. Foreign Policy , 141, pp. 30-45. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4147547 . Lara-Alecio, R., Galloway, M., Irby, B. J., Rodriguez, L., & Gómez, L. (2004, Spring). Two- Way Immersion Bilingual Programs in Texas. Bilingual Research Journal , 28 (1), pp 35 - 54. Retrieved February 27, 2014, from ProQuest: http://search.proquest.com.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk:2048/docview/222008388? accountid=14468 Lopez, M. H. (2009, October 7). Latinos and Education: Explaining the Attainment Gap. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from Pew Hispanic Center: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/10/07/latinos-and-education-explaining-the-attainment- gap/ Marian, V., Shook, A., & Schroeder, S. R. (2013). Bilingual Two-Way Immersion Programs Benefit Academic Achievement. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education , 36 (2), pp. 167-186. DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2013.818075 Murillo, E. G., Villenas, S. A., Galván, R. T., Muñoz, J. S., Martínez, C., & Machado- Casas, M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Latinos and Education. New York: Routledge. Nuñez, A.-M., Hoover, R. E., Pickett, K., Vazquez, M., & Stuart-Carruthers, A. C. (Eds.). (2012). Latinos in Higher Education : Creating Conditions for Student Success (J-B ASHE Higher Education Report Series (AEHE), volume 181). Somerset, NJ: Wiley. Pew Hispanic Center. (2009, December 11). Between Two Worlds: How Young Latinos Come of Age in America. Retrieved January 23, 2014, from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/12/11/between-two-worlds-how-young-latinos-come-of- age-in-america/ ProEnglish. (n.d.). Bilingual Education. Retrieved March 26, 2014, from ProEnglish: https://www.proenglish.org/projects/bilingual-education.html Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). The Making of a People. In M. Tienda, Hispanics and the future of America (pp.16-65). Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. Rumbaut, R. G., & Portes, A. (2001). School Achievement and Failure. In A. Portes, & R. G. Rumbaut, Legacies : The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rumberger, R. W., & Tran, L. (2010). State Language Policies, School Language Practices, and the English Learnes Achievement Gap. In P. Gándara, & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies. New York: Teachers College Press. Schneider, B., Martinez, S., & Owens, A. (2006). Barriers to Educational Opportunities for Hispanics in the United States. In M. Tienda, & F. Mitchell, Hispanics and the Future of America (pp.179-227). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N., Calderón, M., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M. (2010, January). Reading and Language Outcomes of a Five-Year Randomized Evaluation Of

Transitional Bilingual Education. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from Education Week: http://www.edweek.org/media/bilingual_pdf.pdf Soto, L. D. (2011). Latina/o Hope. New York: Springer. Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long-Term Academic Achievement. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, University of California: http://www.thomasandcollier.com/publications.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). The Hispanic Population: 2010 - U.S. Census Brief. Washington, DC. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/population/hispanic/publications/ Varghese, M. M., & Park, C. (2010, January 8). Going Global: Can Dual-Language Programs Save Bilingual Education? Journal of Latinos and Education , 9 (1), pp. 72-80. DOI: 10.1080/15348430903253092