essay on benefits of bilingual education

The Benefits of Bilingual Education and Its Impact on Student Learning and Growth

Approximately 5 million students in the United States are English language learners, and the number of English language learners (ELLs) in the US public school system continues to rise steadily, especially in more urbanized school districts.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), students who speak English as a second language are more likely to struggle with academics, and only about 67 percent will graduate from public high school in four years—whereas the average for all students is 84 percent. ELL students can better develop their English proficiency and close the gap in achievement by participating in language assistance programs or bilingual education programs, the NCES explains.

The benefits of bilingual education can begin with students in elementary school and follow them throughout their lives. Education’s impact can lead to a variety of outcomes depending on whether ELL students learn English in a monolingual or bilingual environment. Educators in diverse classrooms or working as school leaders should consider the benefits of bilingual education when creating curricula and establishing desired student learning outcomes.

What Is Bilingual Education?

While bilingual education can take many forms, it strives to incorporate multiple languages into the process of teaching. For example, since there is such a large Spanish-speaking population in the United States, many primary and secondary school students can benefit from educational environments where they are learning in both English and Spanish.

Bilingual education can often be the most effective when children are beginning preschool or elementary school. If children grow up speaking Spanish as their primary language, it can be difficult for them to be placed in English-speaking elementary schools and be expected to understand their teachers and classmates. In a bilingual classroom, however, young students can further establish their foundation of Spanish as well as English, better preparing them for the rest of their education.

Of course, this works for students who begin school speaking any language as their primary language. Children whose parents have come to the United States from another country may have limited English skills when they first begin elementary school. Teachers working in bilingual education classrooms will balance their use of two languages when teaching math, science, history, and other subjects to help these students develop a stronger foundation of their first language as well as English as their second language.

Academic Benefits

Students can benefit in many ways from participating in bilingual education programs or classrooms. Some of the benefits of bilingual education relate to intellect. For example, research has shown that students who can speak and write in multiple languages have cognitive advantages over their monolingual peers. Those who learn a second or third language from a young age are able to develop communication skills and a higher degree of literacy. Children who grow up in bilingual environments develop a keen awareness of how language works and have a stronger foundation for learning additional languages in the future.

Students can also benefit academically from bilingual education. Students who pursue higher education are typically required to take a foreign language at the collegiate level, so those who have been exposed to bilingual educational environments before college—and speak two or more languages—have an advantage over their peers. They can advance in their studies and feel comfortable with multiple communities of students on their campuses.

Students who are exposed to multiple languages throughout high school and college can also have long-term career benefits. Their proficiency in multiple languages is an advantage when they graduate and enter the workplace as professionals. Every industry has a need for effective communicators who can speak multiple languages to meet the needs of the growing number of English language learners in the United States. International operations also have a great need for professionals who can speak multiple languages and represent US-based organizations and companies.

Growth beyond Academics

While there are many benefits of bilingual education related to school and work, bilingual education programs also have a huge impact on students’ cultural and social growth. Children who grow up speaking English as a second language often come from culturally diverse backgrounds. Incorporating cultural education in the classroom can help create enriching academic experiences for all students.

Exploring multiple languages in the classroom provides a foundation for cultural education that allows students to learn and grow alongside classmates from a different cultural background. As a result, students learn to become more adaptable and more aware of the world around them.

To encourage the academic and cultural development of students in bilingual education settings, teachers should have a strong foundation in education and leadership. They should demonstrate a passion for teaching as well as an understanding of how language and culture work together in their students’ academic journeys. Educators should be aware of the role that policies play in the educational environments they cultivate and have an understanding of how to best represent their students’ cultural backgrounds.

Pursue a Master of Arts in Teaching or Master of Education in Education Policy and Leadership

To implement the best teaching practices in bilingual education classrooms, teachers should be equipped with a foundation in transformational leadership and cultural awareness. To that end, teachers looking to have a meaningful impact on the lives of their students can further their own education and pursue an advanced degree in education policy and leadership. Through programs like American University’s Master of Arts in Teaching and Master of Education in Education Policy and Leadership , educators can broaden their worldviews, engaging in topics such as education law and policy, quantitative research in education, and educational leadership and organizational change.

Culturally Responsive Teaching Strategies: Importance, Benefits & Tips

EdD vs. PhD in Education: Requirements, Career Outlook, and Salary

Transformational Leadership in Education

Bilingual Kidspot, “5 Amazing Benefits of a Bilingual Education”

Learning English, “Number of English Learners in US Schools Keeps Rising”

National Center for Education Statistics, “Digest of Education Statistics”

National Center for Education Statistics, “English Language Learners in Public Schools”

Pew Research Center, “6 Facts About English Language Learners in U.S. Public Schools”

USA Today, “More US Schools Teach in English and Spanish, But Not Enough to Help Latino Kids”

Request Information

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

Cultivating Bilingualism: The Benefits of Multilingual Classrooms

You are here

What slows cognitive decline in old age, increases earning potential throughout adulthood, and is best started in early childhood? Learning a second (or third!) language.

For decades, educators, researchers, and policy makers across the United States engaged in heated debates about how to ensure English proficiency. Some thought that learning two languages was somehow confusing to children and detrimental to their education. Far too often, debaters showed little regard for how a child’s home language tied him to his family, community, and culture.

Thanks to new research on the cognitive, social, and economic benefits of bilingualism, that debate has largely ended. Now we can focus our energy on supporting children whose first language is not English by building on their linguistic strengths—and on harnessing those strengths to help their peers who only speak English learn a second language too.

This issue of  Young Children  takes you inside several multilingual classrooms for in-depth, practical examples of how to enhance social, emotional, scientific, language, and literacy development with children who are learning more than one language.

Because a strong social and emotional foundation supports all other learning, we begin with “ Paired Learning: Strategies for Enhancing Social Competence in Dual Language Classrooms ,” by Iliana Alanís and María G. Arreguín-Anderson. The authors observed teachers in preschool through first grade Spanish-English dual language classrooms; based on their observations, they share detailed accounts of highly effective ways to help children learn to cooperate and collaborate. They emphasize learning in pairs as a way to create many low-pressure opportunities for dual language learners to engage in conversations.

Next, we step inside a dual language Head Start classroom where the teachers alternate the language of instruction (Spanish or English) weekly and offer multilingual supports throughout each day. Wanting to teach more science but not having enough time, the teachers join a professional development collaborative to learn how to incorporate science into their language and literacy activities. The impressive results are captured by Leanne M. Evans in “ The Power of Science: Using Inquiry Thinking to Enhance Learning in a Dual Language Preschool Classroom .” As the teachers’ new lesson plans demonstrate, “science education offers [children] discovery-oriented play, vocabulary-rich content, and abundant opportunities to explore oral and written language.”

Although dual language models are a wonderful way to cultivate bilingualism—along with biliteracy, biculturalism, and a whole new lens on the world—they are not always feasible. Many classrooms are multilingual, so teachers are seeking ways to foster first-, second-, and even third-language development (along with progress in all other domains), even when they don’t speak all of the children’s first languages.

In “ Five Tips for Engaging Multilingual Children in Conversation ,” E. Brook Chapman de Sousa offers research-based and teacher-refined strategies to take on this challenge. With examples from a preschool in which over 30 languages are spoken, Chapman de Sousa demonstrates how children benefit when their teachers “use children’s home languages as a resource; pair conversations with joint activities; coparticipate in activities; use small groups; and respond to children’s contributions.” Active listening and gesturing are key ways teachers can be responsive and communicate caring when they do not speak a child’s first language.

Cristina Gillanders and Lucinda Soltero-González help teachers craft a strengths-based instructional approach in “ Discovering How Writing Works in Different Languages: Lessons from Dual Language Learners .” This article carefully examines children’s emergent writing, with examples from prekindergarten through first grade, asking teachers to consider how a child’s knowledge of and ideas about her first language impact her writing in her second language. Teachers can then build on what the children already know and support children’s progress in both languages.

We close the cluster with “ Can We Talk? Creating Opportunities for Meaningful Academic Discussions with Multilingual Children ,” by Mary E. Bolt, Carmen M. Rodriguez, Christopher J. Wagner, and C. Patrick Proctor. Teachers and researchers together develop a structured approach for building multilingual children’s academic vocabulary, knowledge, oral language skills, and writing as they extend an existing unit on ocean animals to create far more opportunities for meaningful conversations. The authors describe how they helped the children develop the social skills, like turn taking, that are necessary for authentic discussions.

While this cluster focuses on children whose first language is not English, all children benefit from the rich, intentional, language-building instruction described in these articles.

Is your classroom full of children’s artwork? 

To feature it in  Young Children , see the link at the bottom of the page or email  [email protected]  for details.

These masterpieces, inspired by van Gogh’s  Starry Night  and  Sunflowers , were created by first and second graders in Ms. Bridget’s class at Plato Academy in Des Plaines, Illinois.

We’d love to hear from you!

Send your thoughts on this issue, as well as topics you’d like to read about in future issues of  Young Children , to  [email protected] .

Lisa Hansel, EdD, is the editor in chief of NAEYC's peer-reviewed journal, Young Children .

Vol. 74, No. 2

Print this article

Multilingual education: A key to quality and inclusive learning

Language is more than a tool for communication; it’s a very specific human cognitive faculty and the foundation of our shared humanity. It enables the transmission of experiences, traditions, knowledge and identities across generations.

Languages play a crucial role in promoting peace, fostering intercultural dialogue and driving sustainable development. They permeate every facet of our lives—from family and work to education, politics, media, justice, research and technology. Our values, beliefs, knowledge, identities and worldviews are intricately shaped by language, reflecting the richness of the human experience.

Languages are at risk and must be championed

But languages are under significant threat. UNESCO data indicates that around 600 languages have disappeared in the last century. If current trends continue, up to 90 per cent of the world’s languages may become extinct by the end of this century.

International Mother Language Day, observed annually on 21 February, underscores the urgent need to champion linguistic diversity and multilingual education rooted in mother tongues.

For more than seven decades, UNESCO has promoted mother language-based and multilingual education as fundamental to achieving quality, inclusive learning.

Why multilingual education matters

Enhanced learning.  First, and most obviously, students learn best in a language they understand. Yet UNESCO data shows that 40 per cent of the world’s population does not have access to an education in a language they speak or understand. Our research documents the benefits of being taught in learners’ native languages: in upper-middle- and high-income countries, children who speak the language they are taught in are 14 per cent more likely to read with understanding at the end of primary, compared to those who do not.

In France, children who speak French at home are 28 per cent more likely to be able to read with understanding at the end of primary than children who do not. This share rises to over 60 per cent more likely in countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Slovakia, South Africa and Türkiye.

At the end of lower secondary, adolescents speaking the language of instruction are over 40 per cent more likely to be able to read with understanding compared to those who did not. This ranges from a 4 per cent gap in Canada to around 40 per cent in Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and over 60 per cent in Thailand.

Improved access and inclusivity through mother tongue education.  Adopting a mother language-based, multilingual education improves access to and inclusion in education, particularly for population groups that speak non-dominant, minority and indigenous languages. Studies have shown that such approaches can boost classroom participation, improve retention rates and encourage family and community involvement in education. They also play a vital role in mitigating the challenges faced by migrant and refugee learners, promoting a sense of safety and resilience. Yet—at a time of record displacement—over 31 million young people who have fled war or crisis situations are learning in a language that differs from the official language of their country of origin.

Contributing to peace and sustainable development.  The achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals is intricately linked to linguistic diversity and multilingualism. The  Global Action Plan of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022–2032) , spearheaded by UNESCO, underscores the importance of language choice for human dignity, peaceful coexistence and sustainable development. Commitment to these ideals drives UNESCO support for building inclusive and equitable, quality education opportunities in indigenous languages in both formal, non-formal and informal educational settings.

Helping mother language education thrive

The potential of multilingual education is enormous, but realizing its full benefits requires a commitment to lifelong learning and a deeper appreciation of the value of linguistic diversity.

To foster thriving multilingual education, we need robust policy support, advocacy and innovation. This includes adopting policies that promote mother language education from early childhood, as seen in diverse countries such as Ghana, Peru, Singapore and South Africa. It also involves recruiting and training teachers and community members competent in learners’ mother tongues, as well as exploring innovative solutions, such as partnerships with digital platforms, to meet diverse language needs.

Partnerships and cooperation at all levels, including across universities, academic centres and institutions that support language development, can also enhance capacity, and expand access to teaching and learning materials in local languages in both print and digital forms. This must be accompanied by formative and summative assessments that are appropriately designed to monitor the learning outcomes of multilingual learners.

Mother language-based, multilingual education must be part of our efforts to address the learning crisis and learning poverty facing many countries around the world.

In an increasingly globalized world, UNESCO remains committed to promoting multilingual education and cultural and linguistic diversity as cornerstones for the sustainability of our societies.

This article by UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Education, Stefania Giannini, was originally  published in the UN Chronicle on 20 February 2024, ahead of International Mother Language Day. 

• International Mother Language Day
• Why multilingual education is key to intergenerational learning

Related items

• Mother tongue
• Mother tongue instruction
• Educational trends
• Topics: Display
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent idea

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

5 Million Voices

6 potential brain benefits of bilingual education.

Anya Kamenetz

Part of our ongoing series exploring how the U.S. can educate the nearly 5 million students who are learning English.

Brains, brains, brains. One thing we've learned at NPR Ed is that people are fascinated by brain research. And yet it can be hard to point to places where our education system is really making use of the latest neuroscience findings.

But there is one happy nexus where research is meeting practice: bilingual education. "In the last 20 years or so, there's been a virtual explosion of research on bilingualism," says Judith Kroll, a professor at the University of California, Riverside.

Again and again, researchers have found, "bilingualism is an experience that shapes our brain for a lifetime," in the words of Gigi Luk, an associate professor at Harvard's Graduate School of Education.

At the same time, one of the hottest trends in public schooling is what's often called dual-language or two-way immersion programs.

How We Teach English Learners: 3 Basic Approaches

Traditional programs for English-language learners, or ELLs, focus on assimilating students into English as quickly as possible. Dual-language classrooms, by contrast, provide instruction across subjects to both English natives and English learners, in both English and in a target language.

The goal is functional bilingualism and biliteracy for all students by middle school.

New York City, North Carolina, Delaware, Utah, Oregon and Washington state are among the places expanding dual-language classrooms.

The trend flies in the face of some of the culture wars of two decades ago, when advocates insisted on "English first" education. Most famously, California passed Proposition 227 in 1998. It was intended to sharply reduce the amount of time that English-language learners spent in bilingual settings.

Proposition 58 , passed by California voters on Nov. 8, largely reversed that decision, paving the way for a huge expansion of bilingual education in the state that has the largest population of English-language learners.

Bilingual Education Returns To California. Now What?

Some of the insistence on English-first was founded in research produced decades ago, in which bilingual students underperformed monolingual English speakers and had lower IQ scores.

Today's scholars, like Ellen Bialystok at York University in Toronto, now say that research was "deeply flawed."

"Earlier research looked at socially disadvantaged groups," agrees Antonella Sorace at the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland. "This has been completely contradicted by recent research" that compares more similar groups to each other.

So what does recent research say about the potential benefits of bilingual education? NPR Ed called up seven researchers in three countries — Sorace, Bialystok, Luk, Kroll, Jennifer Steele, and the team of Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier — to find out.

It turns out that, in many ways, the real trick to speaking two languages consists in managing not to speak one of those languages at a given moment — which is fundamentally a feat of paying attention.

Saying "Goodbye" to mom and then " Guten tag " to your teacher, or managing to ask for a crayola roja instead of a red crayon, requires skills called "inhibition" and "task switching." These skills are subsets of an ability called executive function.

People who speak two languages often outperform monolinguals on general measures of executive function. "[Bilinguals] can pay focused attention without being distracted and also improve in the ability to switch from one task to another," says Sorace.

Do these same advantages accrue to a child who begins learning a second language in kindergarten instead of as a baby? We don't yet know. Patterns of language learning and language use are complex. But Gigi Luk at Harvard cites at least one brain-imaging study on adolescents that shows similar changes in brain structure when compared with those who are bilingual from birth, even when they didn't begin practicing a second language in earnest before late childhood.

Young children being raised bilingual have to follow social cues to figure out which language to use with which person and in what setting. As a result, says Sorace, bilingual children as young as age 3 have demonstrated a head start on tests of perspective-taking and theory of mind — both of which are fundamental social and emotional skills.

Reading (English)

About 10 percent of students in the Portland, Ore., public schools are assigned by lottery to dual-language classrooms that offer instruction in Spanish, Japanese or Mandarin, alongside English.

Jennifer Steele at American University conducted a four-year, randomized trial and found that these dual-language students outperformed their peers in English-reading skills by a full school year's worth of learning by the end of middle school.

Such a large effect in a study this size is unusual, and Steele is currently conducting a flurry of follow-up studies to tease out the causality: Is this about a special program that attracted families who were more engaged? Or about the dual-language instruction itself?

"If it's just about moving the kids around," Steele says, "that's not as exciting as if it's a way of teaching that makes you smarter."

'Invisible' Children: Raised In The U.S., Now Struggling In Mexico

Steele suspects the latter. Because the effects are found in reading, not in math or science where there were few differences, she suggests that learning two languages makes students more aware of how language works in general, aka "metalinguistic awareness."

The research of Gigi Luk at Harvard offers a slightly different explanation. She has recently done a small study looking at a group of 100 fourth-graders in Massachusetts who had similar reading scores on a standard test, but very different language experiences.

Some were foreign-language dominant and others were English natives. Here's what's interesting. The students who were dominant in a foreign language weren't yet comfortably bilingual; they were just starting to learn English. Therefore, by definition, they had much weaker English vocabularies than the native speakers.

Yet they were just as good at decoding a text.

"This is very surprising," Luk says. "You would expect the reading comprehension performance to mirror vocabulary — it's a cornerstone of comprehension."

How did the foreign-language dominant speakers manage this feat? Well, Luk found, they also scored higher on tests of executive functioning. So, even though they didn't have huge mental dictionaries to draw on, they may have been great puzzle-solvers, taking into account higher-level concepts such as whether a single sentence made sense within an overall story line.

They got to the same results as the monolinguals, by a different path.

School performance and engagement.

Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier, a husband and wife team of professors emeritus at George Mason University in Virginia, have spent the past 30 years collecting evidence on the benefits of bilingual education.

"Wayne came to our research with skepticism, thinking students ought to get instruction all day in English," says Virginia Collier. "Eight million student records later, we're convinced," Wayne Thomas chimes in.

In studies covering six states and 37 districts, they have found that, compared with students in English-only classrooms or in one-way immersion, dual-language students have somewhat higher test scores and also seem to be happier in school. Attendance is better, behavioral problems fewer, parent involvement higher.

Diversity and integration.

American public school classrooms as a whole are becoming more segregated by race and class. Dual-language programs can be an exception. Because they are composed of native English speakers deliberately placed together with recent immigrants, they tend to be more ethnically and socioeconomically balanced. And there is some evidence that this helps kids of all backgrounds gain comfort with diversity and different cultures.

Several of the researchers I talked with also pointed out that, in bilingual education, non-English-dominant students and their families tend to feel that their home language is heard and valued, compared with a classroom where the home language is left at the door in favor of English.

This can improve students' sense of belonging and increase parent involvement in their children's education, including behaviors like reading to children.

"Many parents fear their language is an obstacle, a problem, and if they abandon it their child will integrate better," says Antonella Sorace of the University of Edinburgh. "We tell them they're not doing their child a favor by giving up their language."

Protection against cognitive decline and dementia.

File this away as a very, very long-range payoff. Researchers have found that actively using two languages seems to have a protective effect against age-related dementia — perhaps relating to the changes in brain structure we talked about earlier.

Specifically, among patients with Alzheimer's in a Canadian study, a group of bilingual adults performed on par with a group of monolingual adults in terms of cognitive tests and daily functioning. But when researchers looked at the two groups' brains, they found evidence of brain atrophy that was five to seven years more advanced in the bilingual group. In other words, the adults who spoke two languages were carrying on longer at a higher level despite greater degrees of damage.

The coda, and a caution

One theme that was striking in speaking to all these researchers was just how strongly they advocated for dual-language classrooms.

Thomas and Collier have advised many school systems on how to expand their dual-language programs, and Sorace runs " Bilingualism Matters ," an international network of researchers who promote bilingual education projects.

This type of advocacy among scientists is unusual; even more so because the "bilingual advantage hypothesis" is being challenged once again. A review of studies published last year found that cognitive advantages failed to appear in 83 percent of published studies, though in a separate meta-analysis, the sum of effects was still significantly positive.

One potential explanation offered by the researchers I spoke with is that advantages that are measurable in the very young and very old tend to fade when testing young adults at the peak of their cognitive powers.

And, they countered that no negative effects of bilingual education have been found. So, they argue that even if the advantages are small, they are still worth it.

Not to mention one obvious, outstanding fact underlined by many of these researchers: "Bilingual children can speak two languages! That's amazing," says Bialystok.

Bilingual Education: What the Research Tells Us

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2016
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Stephen May 5  

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of Language and Education ((ELE))

656 Accesses

2 Citations

This chapter explores key research findings about bilingual education and the related efficacy of various approaches to teaching bilingual students. Its principal focus is on the research to date on the most common forms of bilingual education. This research consistently supports the efficacy of bilingual education, particularly when it is predicated on additive bilingual principles. Even so, ongoing public opposition to bilingual education, often highly misinformed, remains strong. The chapter also examines recent research around the notions of “dynamic bilingualism” and “translanguaging,” along with their pedagogical implications for existing bilingual programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Not all Indigenous communities accept heritage bilingual programs as an appropriate overarching term – as evident, most clearly, in the rejection of the term by many First Nations peoples in Canada (Cummins, personal communication).

This diagram was developed in conjunction with my colleague, Richard Hill and is loosely based on an earlier diagram by Hornberger ( 1991 ). It was previously published in May ( 2010 ).

Abedi, J. (2004). The no child left behind act and english language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33 (4), 4–14.

Article   Google Scholar  

Andersson, T., & Boyer, M. (1970). Bilingual schooling in the United States: Vol. 1 . Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Google Scholar  

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (Ed.). (1993). European typologies of bilingual education . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, K., & de Kanter, A. (1981). Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of the literature . Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Baker, K., & de Kanter, A. (Eds.). (1983). Bilingual education: A reappraisal of federal policy . Lexington: Lexington Books.

Baker, C., & Prys Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Barnard, R., & Glynn, T. (2003). Bilingual children’s language and literacy development: New Zealand case studies . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Callahan, R., & Gándara, P. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96 (2), 251–269.

Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35 , 243–262. doi:10.1093/applin/amt011.

Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education . Boston: Thomson Heine.

Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice . Trenton: Crane Publishing.

Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Crawford, J. (2008). Advocating for English learners: Selected essays . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94 , 103–115.

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222–259.

Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society . Toronto: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2010). Bilingual and immersion programs. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 161–181). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.

Danoff, M., Coles, G., McLaughlin, D., & Reynolds, D. (1978). Evaluation of the impact of ESEA title VII Spanish/English bilingual education program . Palo Alto: American Institutes for Research.

de Courcy, M. (2002). Learners’ experiences of immersion education: Case studies in French and Chinese . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

de Mejia, A. (2002). Power, prestige and bilingualism: International perspectives on elite bilingual education . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dicker, S. (2003). Languages in America (2nd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dubetz, N., & de Jong, E. (2011). Teacher advocacy in bilingual programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 34 (3), 248–262.

Extra, G., Spotti, M., & Avermaet, P. (Eds.). (2009). Language testing, migration and citizenship: Cross-national perspectives on integration regimes . London: Continuum.

Fishman, J. (1976). Bilingual education: An international sociological perspective . Rowley: Newbury House.

Fishman, J. (1992). The displaced anxieties of Anglo-Americans. In J. Crawford (Ed.), Language loyalties: A source book on the Official English controversy (pp. 165–170). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Freeman, R. (1998). Bilingual education and social change . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Freeman, R. (2004). Building on community bilingualism . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

García, O. (2009a). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective . Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

García, O. (2009b). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. Mohanty, & M. Panda (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 140–158). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

García, O., & Flores, N. (2014). Multilingualism and common core standards in the United States. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 147–166). New York: Routledge.

García, O., & Sylvan, C. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. Modern Language Journal, 95 (3), 385–400.

García, O., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Torres-Guzman, M. (Eds.). (2012). Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and globalization . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gathercole, V. (2013a). Issues in the assessment of bilingual students . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Gathercole, V. (2013b). Solutions for the assessment of bilingual students . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, B., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English Language learners: A synthesis of research evidence . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

González, V. (2012). Assessment of bilingual/multilingual pre-K-Grade 12 students: A critical discussion of past, present, and future issues. Theory Into Practice, 51 (4), 290–296.

Hakuta, K., Butler, G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take learners to attain English proficiency? Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography . London: Longman.

Hill, R., & May, S. (2011). Exploring biliteracy in Māori-medium education: An ethnographic perspective. In T. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography in language policy (pp. 161–184). New York: Routledge.

Hill, R., & May, S. (2013). Balancing the languages in Māori-medium education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In V. Zenotz, D. Gorter, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Minority languages and multilingual education (pp. 171–189). New York: Springer.

Hinton, L., & Hale, K. (2001). The green book of language revitalization in practice . San Diego: Academic.

Hornberger, N. (1988). Bilingual education and language maintenance: A southern Peruvian Quechua case . Berlin: Mouton.

Hornberger, N. (1991). Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typologies and redirecting policy. In O. García (Ed.), Bilingual education: Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hornberger, N. (2003). Continua of biliteracy. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 1–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hornberger, N. (2008). Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages?. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Howard, E., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K., & Rogers, D. (2007). Guiding principles for dual language education (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Johnson, R., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.

Jones, B., & Ghuman, P. (1995). Bilingualism, education and identity . Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

King, K. (2001). Language revitalization processes and prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57 (1), 1–44.

Leung, C. (2014). Communication and participatory involvement in linguistically diverse classrooms. In The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 123–146). New York: Routledge.

Lin, A. (2006). Beyond linguistic purism in language-in-education policy and practice: Exploring bilingual pedagogies in a Hong Kong science classroom. Language and Education, 20 (4), 287–305.

Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review, 4 (1), 195–218. doi:10.1515/applirev-2013-0009.

Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

May, S. (1994). Making multicultural education work . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

May, S. (2010). Curriculum and the education of cultural and linguistic minorities. In B. McGraw, E. Baker, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 293–298). Oxford: Elsevier.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

May, S. (Ed.). (2014a). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education . New York: Routledge.

May, S. (2014b). Justifying educational language rights. Review of Research in Education, 38 (1), 215–241.

May, S. (2014c). Overcoming disciplinary boundaries: Connecting language, education and (anti)racism. In R. Race & V. Lander (Eds.), Advancing race and ethnicity in education (pp. 128–144). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

May, S., & Dam, L. (2014). Bilingual education and bilingualism. Oxford bibliographies . New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756810/obo-9780199756810-0109.xml .

May, S., & Hill, R. (2005). Māori-medium education: Current issues and challenges. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8 (5), 377–403.

May, S., Hill, R., & Tiakiwai, S. (2004). Bilingual/immersion education: Indicators of good practice. Final Report to the Ministry of Education . Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/pasifika/5079 .

McCarty, T. (2002). A place to be Navajo: Rough Rock and the struggle for self-determination in indigenous schooling . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCarty, T. (2012). Language planning and policy in Native America . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

McField, G., & McField, D. (2014). The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses. In G. McField (Ed.), The miseducation of English learners (pp. 267–299). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

McGroarty, M. (2006). Neoliberal collusion or strategic simultaneity? On multiple rationales for language-in-education policies. Language Policy, 5 , 3–13.

Menken, K. (2008). English language learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Paris, D. (2011). Language across difference: Ethnicity, communication and youth identities in changing urban schools . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pérez, B. (2003). Becoming biliterate: A study of two-way bilingual immersion education . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ramírez, J., Yuen, S., & Ramey, D. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children . San Mateo: Aguirre International.

Ricento, T. (1996). Language policy in the United States. In M. Herriman & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries (pp. 122–158). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Rossell, C., & Baker, K. (1996). The effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30 , 7–74.

Safford, K., & Drury, R. (2012). The ‘problem’ of bilingual children in educational settings: Policy and research in England. Language and Education, 27 (1), 70–81.

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches . New York: Routledge.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or not: The education of minorities . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education-or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Soltero-González, L., Escamilla, K., & Hopewell, S. (2011). Challenging teachers’ perceptions about the writing abilities of emerging bilingual students: Towards a holistic bilingual perspective on writing assessment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15 (1), 71–94.

Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students . Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement . Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE).

Tollefson, J., & Tsui, A. (Eds.). (2004). Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Valdés, G., Fishman, J., Chávez, R., & Pérez, W. (2006). Towards the development of minority language resources . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Wiley, T. (2001). On defining heritage language education and their speakers. In J. Peyton, D. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource . McHenry: Delta Systems.

Wiley, T., Peyton, J., Christian, D., Moore, S., & Liu, N. (2014). Handbook of heritage, community and Native American languages in the United States: Research, policy and educational practice . New York: Routledge.

Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55 , 269–317.

Willig, A. (1987). Examining bilingual education research through meta-analysis and narrative review: A response to Baker. Review of Educational Research, 57 , 363–376.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, 74 Epsom Avenue, Epsom, 1023, Auckland, New Zealand

Stephen May

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen May .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

City University of New York The Graduate Center, New York, New York, USA

Ofelia Garcia

Faculty of Education The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Faculty of Education, University of Auckland Faculty of Education, Auckland, New Zealand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry.

May, S. (2016). Bilingual Education: What the Research Tells Us. In: Garcia, O., Lin, A., May, S. (eds) Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_4-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_4-1

Received : 16 October 2015

Accepted : 13 November 2015

Published : 19 April 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-02324-3

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Our Mission

Highlighting the Benefits of Being Bilingual 

By pointing out the benefits of bilingualism, teachers can give students learning English a boost in confidence.

Three years ago, I had a hardworking student in my class whom I’ll call Jose. As I connected with him, I was glad to learn more about his past and found out that he had immigrated with his family to the United States from Mexico a couple of years prior. At parents’ night, Jose’s mother spoke to him in Spanish, which surprised me as he never spoke Spanish at school and had previously told me that he only spoke English.

The next day, I pulled Jose aside and asked him about his speaking Spanish with his mother. With his head hung low, he explained that he was ashamed of speaking Spanish because he wanted to be “more American.” My heart broke for him, and throughout the course of that year, it became one of my teacher missions to show Jose that the ability to speak two languages is a great asset.

Sadly, Jose’s story is not unique. As educators, it’s our responsibility to show bilingual students that the ability to speak two languages is a great gift. Bilingualism is an incredible skill—it can lead to stronger brain functioning, higher incomes, and positive health impacts. In many ways, bilingualism is a superpower. There’s so much research showing the significant benefits of speaking two languages, and it’s important to empower students by sharing this information with them.

Benefits of Bilingualism

Bilingualism makes executive functioning skills stronger. Researchers at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University in Milan studied brain scans of bilingual and monolingual individuals. They found that people who are bilingual have significantly more gray matter in the portion of their brain called the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The ACC is one of the portions of the brain involved in executive functioning. 

People who are bilingual are consistently switching between languages and interpreting which language needs to be used at which time; this is brain exercise, which leads to the strengthening of this portion of the brain muscle. Researchers conclude that by having more gray matter in this portion of the brain, people who are bilingual may have an easier time with executive functions, including decision-making, motivation, and emotional regulation . 

Bilingualism makes people better at multitasking. People who are bilingual are multitasking without thinking about it. As a person’s brain transitions from one language to another, they are processing information and shifting between languages at the same time. 

Research shows that the ability to multitask linguistically translates to an ability to multitask in other areas of a person’s life because it strengthens the executive functioning skills in the brain. Researchers conducted a study looking at whether or not elementary school students could multitask; in this study, researchers had students perform multiple different types of tasks, and they found that bilingual students outperformed monolingual students on tasks that required students to multitask.

Bilingualism can increase math and reading performance. Several studies have shown a correlation between bilingualism and stronger mathematical abilities in students. In a large study of pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade students, bilingual students outperformed monolingual students in mathematical reasoning, mathematical skills on word problems, and early number awareness skills. 

Along with increased math performance, there is also conjecture that bilingualism can increase students’ reading abilities. 

American University conducted a four-year study of Portland Public School students, comparing the academics of students enrolled in dual-language programs with those of students enrolled in traditional public schools. Students were enrolled into these two types of programs at random, and it was found that by the end of middle school, students in dual-language programs were performing one grade level higher on reading assessments than their peers who were not enrolled in these programs. 

Bilingualism increases earning potential and job opportunities. Research shows that employers from all career fields prefer to hire bilingual employees . Research also shows that among the millennial generation, bilingual employees earn more on average than their monolingual counterparts. It’s been reported that bilingual employees earn on average between 5 percent and 20 percent more than their monolingual peers .

Bilingualism can prevent negative effects of disease and brain injury. In recent years, a number of studies have been published looking at the impacts of bilingualism on human health. Many of these studies have surprising results showing the protection that bilingualism can provide to the brain. 

A study from York University found that people who are bilingual have delayed symptoms after a diagnosis of dementia; while bilingualism didn’t stop a person’s dementia, people who were bilingual exhibited symptoms approximately four years later than people who were monolingual with the same disease pathology. Another study that specifically looked at the impact of bilingualism on Alzheimer’s disease found that bilingual people with the disease had symptom onset four to five years later than people who were monolingual.

Another research study examined stroke patients and looked at the different outcomes for bilingual and monolingual patients. The study found that people who were bilingual were more than twice as likely to recover their cognitive functioning skills as people who spoke only one language.

In these studies, researchers concluded that people who are bilingual have a larger cognitive reserve than people who are monolingual due to the more advanced executive functioning skills in their brains that result from continual language switching. Researchers believe that this cognitive reserve allows bilingual individuals a greater ability to compensate in the case of brain injury or illness.

Three weeks ago, I saw Jose in the hallway at school. He was giving a campus tour to a new student who had just immigrated from Oaxaca, Mexico. Jose was speaking with the other student in Spanish as he explained where the new student’s classrooms were located. I am proud to share that today he’s embracing his Spanish language skills and serves as a mentor for others. He now knows that bilingualism is one of his many superpowers.

Bilingual Education and America’s Future: Evidence and Pathways

This paper looks at the next 25 years of education and policy making regarding students classified as English learners (EL). Given the strong research evidence on the benefits of bilingual education and need to address barriers to opportunity experienced by English learners, this paper strengthens the case for federal, state and local education policy and action that looks toward the implementation of bilingual education as the standard service--rather than exception--for EL-classified students.

Bilingual Education: Benefit in Today’s World Essay

Introduction, u.s. residents have the legal right to learn and speak any, works cited.

Richard Rodriguez wrote an article under the title of “Bilingual Education: Outdated and Unrealistic” in which he criticizes bilingual education. He considers bilingual education a form of separation in the society. He also sees it as a negative result of “the civil rights movement of the 1960s”. In his opinion, all U.S. residents must learn and speak one language only which is English. And that’s because (in his opinion) it is the language of the United States.

The author claims that English is the only language that can ensure better chances in life and also better jobs. He totally disagrees with any form of “Bilingualism” in life (Rodriguez 457-60). Those opinions don’t fit with the laws and the values of the United States of America. Also, bilingual education can be useful in many fields in life. Studies have proved that bilingual education enhances mental abilities and improves the skills of students in schools.

Language They Want

“The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has guaranteed freedom of religion and required that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech” (Reyhner). Fighting bilingual education is a serious violation to the freedom of speech. In most cases, the language is a part of any culture in the world, and preventing bilingual education can have a negative effect on many cultures in the United States.

Thus, the United States will become a country with only one language and one culture. In the federal Constitution, there is no specific official language, and that makes it legal for everyone to learn and speak any language he/she wants. European colonists who arrived to America never focused on deciding an official language. Forcing American citizens to use one language is a new way of slavery. The reasons that made English the mainstream language in the United States were the “forces of the marketplace and mass communication” (Reyhner).

The Language Diversity Inside One Country Is Beneficial

Many “multi-national corporations” inside the United States demand employees who have the ability to speak more than one language. And this means that Bilingual education is a priority for getting better chances in employment (Reyhner).

Interestingly, there are some countries in the world that have multiple major languages, but they have no problems about that. Switzerland is an example. Switzerland’s major languages are German, French and Italian (Reyhner).

Bilingual Education Enhances Mental Abilities and Improves Students’ Skills

According to many researches, it was found that people who study with bilingual education programs show better mental abilities than people who study with “monolingual” education programs. The results can be noticed with children and older people. Bilingual education enhances mental abilities in many ways. Some of those ways are:

• “Bilingualism Enhances Attention”: A research done by Dr. Ellen Bialystok from York University in Canada proved that fact. The participants in this research were a group of older people. Some of them were bilingual students and some others were monolingual students. The research team assigned some mental tasks to the participants. The participants performed these tasks during the “Simon Task”. The Simon Task is “an experimental procedure that deliberately distracts the test takers. The Simon Task measures reaction time and cognitive processing that decline with age” (Desaulniers). It was found that bilingual participants were more able to focus on tasks and ignore distractions than monolingual participants (Desaulniers).
• “Bilingualism Builds Cognitive Reserve”: With aging, 2 mental abilities become weaker, attention and memory. Bilingual education protects the human brain through aging. Bilingual education creates something called “cognitive reserve”. Cognitive reserve is “the ability of the brain to be more flexible than normal because the demands made on it at an early age (through bilingualism) have enhanced its ability to rewire and compensate for aging and dysfunctional neurons” (Desaulniers). If any organ in the human body (including brain) gets used to perform more unusual tasks, its abilities will be improved. And this means that bilingual education programs are more beneficial for the human brain than monolingual education programs because they give the brain more mental tasks to perform (Desaulniers).

Foreign-speaking students who are registered in bilingual education programs do better in school than their counterparts who are registered in monolingual education programs. In 2000, there was a study that examined the performance of 952 students in various schools in Date County, Florida. Some of those students were registered in bilingual education programs and some others were registered in monolingual education programs. It was found that students in bilingual education got higher marks in “English literacy”. The difference started to appear by 2 nd grade, but it became notable by the 5 th grade (National Association for Bilingual Education).

Richard Rodriguez’s opinions about bilingual education clash with the American values that ensure the diversity in society. Bilingual education is a right, not just a demand. Bilingual education offers better chances for people in life. It maintains the mental abilities through all age levels. Bilingual education improves the performance of students in schools and that can bring more positive results in the future.

Desaulniers, Mary. “Why Bilingualism Slows Aging: Delays Dementia, Enhances Attention, Builds Cognitive Reserve.” Suite. 2009. Web.

National Association for Bilingual Education. “Does Bilingual Education Really Work?” National Association for Bilingual Education . 2004. Web.

Reyhner, Jon. “Linguicism in America.” Teaching Indigenous Languages . 2007. Northern Arizona University. Web.

Rodriguez, Richard. “Bilingual Education: Outdated and Unrealistic.” Connections: A Multicultural Reader for Writers. 2nd ed. Ed. Judith A. Stanford. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing, 1993. 457-60.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 13). Bilingual Education: Benefit in Today’s World. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education-benefit-in-todays-world/

"Bilingual Education: Benefit in Today’s World." IvyPanda , 13 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education-benefit-in-todays-world/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Bilingual Education: Benefit in Today’s World'. 13 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Bilingual Education: Benefit in Today’s World." March 13, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education-benefit-in-todays-world/.

1. IvyPanda . "Bilingual Education: Benefit in Today’s World." March 13, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education-benefit-in-todays-world/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Bilingual Education: Benefit in Today’s World." March 13, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bilingual-education-benefit-in-todays-world/.

• Vocabulary Skills Among Bi- and Monolingual Children
• Multilingual and Monolingual Children with Dyslexia
• Sociolinguistics: Bilingualism and Education
• Education: Bilingual Kindergarten
• Bilingualism in East Asia Countries
• Benefits of Bilingualism Among Kindergarten Children
• Bilingualism and Executive Functions in Children
• The Effect of Childhood Bilingualism on Episodic and Semantic
• Bilingualism Resistance and Receptivity Explained
• Bilingualism and Multilingualism
• Educational Systems from a Sociological Perspective
• “Mobile Learning in Developing Nations” by Scott Motlik
• Reforms in the Singaporean Education System
• American Community College and Four-Year Institutions
• Key Objectives and Ideas in Brazil’s National Education Plan

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Bilingual education for young children: review of the effects and consequences

Ellen bialystok.

Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Bilingual education has been an educational option in many countries for over 50 years but it remains controversial, especially in terms of its appropriateness for all children. The present review examines research evaluating the outcomes of bilingual education for language and literacy levels, academic achievement, and suitability for children with special challenges. The focus is on early education and the emphasis is on American contexts. Special attention is paid to factors such as socioeconomic status that are often confounded with the outcomes of bilingual education. The conclusion is that there is no evidence for harmful effects of bilingual education and much evidence for net benefits in many domains.

In the US, bilingual education has been a controversial topic almost since the founding of the nation, and from the beginning, the discussions were imbued with political rhetoric (for reviews see Nieto 2009 ; Ovando 2003 ). The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 recognized the situation of minority children with limited proficiency in English and created funding for programs that would assist these children to succeed in American schools and develop their proficiency in both English and their home language. The act was largely focused on Spanish speakers, but subsequent groups, such as Chinese speakers, brought about amendments to the act to expand its scope ( Lau vs. Nichols, 1974 ). Other countries have had a different experience with bilingual education and a different set of political and social associations with these programs. A prime example is Canada, where the social, demographic, and political situations were different from those in the US. Although Canada is officially a bilingual country, there is not a single language that defines most bilinguals as there is in the US, because the majority of bilinguals in Canada speak one of the official languages (English or French) and a heritage language. Surprisingly, few citizens are actually proficient in both official languages. In the 2011 census, about 17% of respondents stated they could conduct a conversation in both English and French, a considerable increase from the estimate of 12% who could achieve this in 1961 ( Lepage and Corbeil 2013 ), although still below what would be expected in a bilingual society. One factor that may be responsible for the growth in French-English bilingualism over the 50-year period is the impact in the past generation of popular French immersion programs in which children who would otherwise have had little exposure to French became very proficient and in many cases, fully bilingual.

In Europe, attitudes to languages, educational systems, and bilingualism in general, to name a few factors, are very different from those in North America. Garcia (2011) makes a strong case for the widespread appropriateness of bilingual education globally, but the context in which education takes place is crucial; there is no universal prescription for bilingual education and no universal outcomes. As Baker (2011) points out, the perspective on bilingual education depends largely on the point of view, and studies conducted in one context may have little relevance for bilingual education in another context. Therefore, this review will focus primarily on North American contexts and address some of the central issues regarding the efficacy of bilingual education for that region, in particular for the US.

Finally, the review will focus on the early school years because they are the foundation for academic outcomes. Education is a long-term process and results continue to influence outcomes throughout life. However, the early years are crucial for establishing basic skills and attitudes toward education, so the examination of bilingual education in the present review will focus on the first three years of schooling. To summarize, the review is restricted in that it selectively reviews studies whose empirical properties are considered sufficiently reliable to form conclusions, with a focus on primary education in the context in the US, and addressing specific questions, namely, language outcomes, cognitive outcomes, and generalized appropriateness of the programs.

Bilingual education is an umbrella terms that encompasses a range of education programs that have been designed for an even wider range of children and a host of special circumstances. Essentially, bilingual education refers to any school program in which more than one language is used in the curriculum to teach non-language academic subject matter or the language of schooling does not match the language of the home or community, but the reasons for incorporating the languages, the specific languages chosen, the structure of the program, and the relation between the school languages and the community vary widely and influence educational outcomes. Over-riding all this is the distinction between ‘bilingual education’ and the ‘education of bilingual children’, concepts that are importantly different from each other. Consider the following two definitions for bilingual education. Genesee (2004 , 548) defined bilingual education as ‘education that aims to promote bilingual (or multilingual) competence by using both (or all) languages as media of instruction for significant portions of the academic curriculum’. In contrast, Rossell and Baker (1996 , 7) defined bilingual education as ‘teaching non-English-speaking students to read and write in their native tongue, teaching them content in their native tongue, and gradually transitioning them to English over a period of several years’. Clearly these definitions are describing different situations and carry different goals.

This distinction between bilingual education and the education of bilingual children is part of the historical difference between the development of bilingual education in the US and elsewhere. For bilingual education of minority language students in the US, the motivation was to create an educational program for children who were at-risk of academic failure because of low proficiency in English, the language of schooling, by engaging them in the education process through the use of their home language (e.g. including Spanish in the education of Hispanic children). The success of these programs was judged primarily by proficiency in English (the majority language), with the main criterion being English language literacy. For bilingual education in Canada, in contrast, the motivation was to offer an educational alternative designed to make majority language children (i.e. English speakers) bilingual. Thus, success of these programs was judged by the extent to which children mastered the minority language while maintaining proficiency in the majority language. Similar immersion programs were developed for children to gain proficiency in both national (e.g. children of Finnish immigrants in Sweden, Troike 1978 ) and heritage languages (e.g. Hawaiian programs in the US, McCarty and Watahomigie 1998 ; Navajo programs in the US, Rosier and Holm 1980 ; Maori programs in New Zealand; Durie 1998 ; May and Hill 2005 ). All these programs fall under the general rubric of bilingual education but are importantly different from each other. A more complete range of the diversity of bilingual education programs is described by Fishman (1976) and more recently by Mehisto and Genesee (2015) .

In spite of substantial differences between them, the two goals of educating bilingual children and creating programs to make children bilingual are interrelated. In the US, there is large overlap between them because the largest number of bilingual education programs was developed to educate bilingual or limited English proficient (EP) students, primarily Spanish-speaking, who were otherwise at-risk for school failure. The present review will focus on bilingual education in general and not on the specific issues involved in the education of this particular group of children (for a detailed discussion of this issue, see August and Shanahan 2006 ). Ultimately, it is important to know if education through two languages is viable, if young children can learn in this kind of an environment, and if the outcomes of these programs meet the needs of all children. The present paper reviews evidence relevant for those judgments.

Development of language and literacy in bilingual education

Evaluation of the effectiveness of bilingual education on language and literacy outcomes requires well-controlled research. The clearest evidence for the unique contribution of bilingual education programs to these outcomes would come from randomized control trials, but such a design is almost impossible to achieve (but see Genesee and Lindholm-Leary 2012 , for discussion). The closest design to this methodological ideal is in studies that investigate bilingual education programs for which spaces are allocated by lottery because of over-demand so that comparisons can be made between children who were admitted to the program and those who were not. Children in this latter group generally enter regular classrooms and may remain on a waiting list. Even here, however, there is the possibility of bias in terms of who enters the lottery. The results of the few studies that have had the opportunity to compare these populations (e.g. Barnett et al. 2007 ) are largely consistent with the majority of the literature in which children in bilingual or single language programs are compared on critical outcome measures.

The primary goal of early schooling is to establish the foundational skills upon which children will build their educational futures. The most important of these abilities are language and literacy competence. Not surprisingly, therefore, the majority of research that has evaluated bilingual education programs has focused on children’s development of these crucial linguistic abilities. The research is complicated because the type of education program is only one of many factors that shape these emerging abilities so clear evidence for the role of the education program as distinct from other sources of variance in the child’s background requires carefully controlled designs. For example, children who are Hispanic but are native speakers of English have education outcomes in terms of dropout rates and academic failure that are similar to Hispanic children who are Spanish-speaking, ruling out English proficiency as the explanation ( Forum for Education and Democracy 2008 ). Just as English proficiency alone cannot explain school outcomes, neither can the educational program.

In part for this reason, conclusions regarding the development of language and literacy through bilingual education in the US is complicated by the confounding of ethnicity and social class with Spanish proficiency and bilingualism (for discussion see Francis, Lesaux, and August 2006 ). Nonetheless, two studies by Lindholm-Leary and colleagues have provided reasonably clear results on these issues. In one study, Lindholm-Leary and Block (2010) assessed the English and mathematics achievement of 659 Hispanic students attending either mainstream English or various types of bilingual programs in California. In the bilingual schools, the proportion of instruction shifted from predominantly Spanish to predominantly English over the period from kindergarten to fourth grade. Students were classified as EP or English Language Learner (ELL) prior to the study. The main result was that standard scores on the English proficiency test were higher for both ELL and EP students who were in the bilingual programs than they were for children in the mainstream English programs. Similar results were found for scores on the mathematics test. Overall, students in the dual language program in this low socioeconomic status (SES) community achieved at least as well and in some cases better in both English and mathematics than did comparable students in a program in which all instruction was in English. Students in the bilingual programs also made more rapid progress across the grades in these tests than did students in the English program and, therefore, were more advanced in their trajectory to close the achievement gap with statewide norms for these tests.

In a similar study that included children in kindergarten through second grade, Lindholm-Leary (2014) assessed 283 low SES Hispanic children in either English or bilingual programs. Children entering the English kindergarten programs had higher language scores than those entering the bilingual programs, but these differences disappeared within one or two years and then reversed, with children in the bilingual program outperforming the English-only instruction group in both English and Spanish test scores by the end of second grade. Not surprisingly, children in the English program showed significant loss of Spanish proficiency, making them in fact less bilingual, a topic that will be discussed below.

Barnett et al. (2007) compared performance of low SES preschool children (3 and 4 years old) in bilingual or English-only programs, but importantly, children were assigned to these programs by lottery, thereby controlling to some extent for pre-existing differences among the children or their families. The programs were in a school district in which 76% of the children qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The outcome measures were largely experimental tasks that assessed phonological awareness and language knowledge (primarily vocabulary), but the results were consistent with those reported in other studies. Specifically, children in both programs made comparable progress in skill development in English, but children in the bilingual program also developed these skills in Spanish, indicating that dual language instruction did not impede development of English, the L2.

In these examples, bilingual instruction had long-term benefits for children’s language and literacy proficiency in both languages. In a review and meta-analysis of this literature, Francis, Lesaux, and August (2006) concluded that ‘bilingual education has a positive effect on English reading outcomes that are small to moderate in size’ (392). Thus, overall, bilingual education for Hispanic children in the US leads to English outcomes that are equivalent to those found for children in mainstream English programs, with better outcomes for Spanish.

These results are broadly consistent with those found for bilingual education programs serving other communities, with other languages, in other countries, where students are more likely to belong to majority language groups than minority language, as in the US. Thus, the outcomes obtained with children at risk for educational failure produce patterns of results similar to those found for children with entirely different linguistic and demographic backgrounds. The most studied of these programs is Canadian French immersion in which Anglophone children in Canada are educated through French. Results of studies over the past 50 years have shown that English outcomes are equivalent to or better than those found for children in English programs (even though most instruction is in French in the primary grades) and French outcomes are moderate to high, although below levels found for native-speaking French children ( Genesee 1983 , 2004 ; Hermanto, Moreno, and Bialystok 2012 ; Swain and Lapkin 1982 ).

Three further examples with similar results come from bilingual programs operating in Italian and English, Mandarin and English, and Hebrew and Russian. Assessment of the Italian-English program was a small-scale study in which 60 children attending this program in California were evaluated from first through third grades for language and literacy ability in English and Italian ( Montanari 2013 ). Results showed that these children developed strong literacy skills in both Italian and English by first grade, even though instruction was exclusively in Italian. The second program, also implemented in California, provided instruction through Mandarin beginning in kindergarten to children who either had Mandarin exposure at home or were only English speaking ( Padilla et al. 2013 ). Like the Italian-English program, this was a small-scale study. The results showed that all children gained proficiency in both English and Mandarin and importantly achieved at least equivalent and sometimes greater than state levels on standardized tests of English, math, and science in spite of being educated through Mandarin. Finally, two studies investigated language and literacy development in Russian-Hebrew bilingual 4-year-olds who were attending either bilingual Hebrew-Russian or Hebrew schools in Israel, where Hebrew is the majority language. Again, the results showed that children in the bilingual programs developed language proficiency ( Schwartz 2013 ) and narrative skills ( Schwartz and Shaul 2013 ) in Hebrew, the majority language, at least as well as did children in the Hebrew only programs and at the same time maintained higher levels of Russian. Across all these studies, therefore, the majority language of the community was mastered whether or not it was the primary language of instruction, but the minority language required environmental support to reach high proficiency levels.

The studies that compared English-only and bilingual education in Hispanic children were generally conducted with low SES populations, but that is not the case for the non-Spanish programs: children in the Italian-English program were described as ‘middle class’; children in the Mandarin-English program were described as ‘upper middle class’; and children in the Hebrew-Russian program were described as ‘mid-level socioeconomic’. Thus, even though none of the students was at-risk in the manner generally understood for Hispanic children in Spanish-English bilingual programs, the patterns of language and literacy outcomes were similar, even if the absolute levels of achievement were different. Therefore, there is no evidence that education through two languages impedes progress in the development of language and literacy skills in the majority language and has the added benefit of developing and sustaining these skills in the minority language. This generalization about positive outcomes is confirmed by a study in which at-risk low performing children attending bilingual education or majority language English-only programs were compared for their English language and literacy performance ( Lopez and Tashakkori 2004 ). There was no evidence of additional burden on the development of English skills for children in the bilingual program.

Other academic and cognitive achievements

However important language and literacy are for children’s development, they are not the only outcomes that need to be considered in evaluating educational options for children. The impact of education through a weak or non-proficient language on children’s academic success has long been a concern. Dire warnings about harmful effects of these programs were expressed by Macnamara (1967) in his evaluation of children attending an Irish immersion program in Ireland. He reported that children in the Irish program performed more poorly in mathematics than did children in regular English programs, but he neglected to point out that the differences were found only in mathematics ‘word’ problems and not in mathematical operations. Unsurprisingly, children’s knowledge of Irish at that point was weak and interfered with their comprehension of the test questions; in tests of arithmetic calculations, there were no differences between groups. These challenges have been known for a long time (e.g. Cummins and Macnamara 1977 ) but the research remained influential. More recent research demonstrates that even simple arithmetic calculation is faster and easier in the language in which it was taught ( Spelke and Tsivkin 2001 ) and engages different parts of the brain than when the same calculations are performed in the non-school language ( Mondt et al. 2011 ), but the Irish proficiency of the children in Macnamara’s (1967) study may have been too weak to show this effect.

Other studies have generally found no academic cost for children studying in a bilingual program. In the Mandarin-English bilingual education program described above ( Padilla et al. 2013 ), for example, children in the dual language immersion and the English programs performed equivalently on standardized tests of mathematics until third grade, but immersion children began outperforming non-immersion children in fourth grade. Thus, these program effects sometimes take time to demonstrate. For tests of science achievement, there were no differences between children in the two programs.

There is evidence that bilingualism alone, aside from bilingual education, may be beneficial for aspects of academic achievement. Han (2012) conducted a longitudinal study in the US of a national cohort of over 16,000 children in kindergarten and followed their academic progress until fifth grade. Because of national education policies requiring standardized testing on English literacy and math scores, large data bases are available for such investigations. In the study by Han (2012) , the children included in the analyses were Hispanic, Asian, or non-Hispanic native-born White and outcome variables were results on standardized reading and math achievement scores. Although the analyses did not explicitly control for the effect of education program, the quality of education was defined in terms of the resources and interventions for English support available in the school program, quality of the teachers, and other such factors and included in the analyses. The results were based on a complex classification of children according to their language abilities. Most relevant is a group called ‘mixed bilingual’, referring to children who spoke a non-English language at home to a high degree of fluency. Although these children entered kindergarten with limited English proficiency and obtained initial scores on both English and math tests that were lower than native English-speaking children, they fully closed the math gap by fifth grade, an achievement that the Han attributes to bilingualism. Nonetheless, English scores still lagged by fifth grade. The focus of the analyses were on quality of school programs, availability of resources, and quality of school personnel, all of which contributed significantly to children’s success. The study was not designed to evaluate the effectiveness of bilingual education but the results are consistent with the conclusion that children’s bilingualism can be a positive factor in school achievement.

Much of this research has focused on children in low SES environments, but Marian, Shook, and Schroeder (2013) extended the question to investigate whether these results would be similar for Spanish-speaking low SES children and monolingual English-speaking middle-class children who were in Spanish-English bilingual programs and were instructed through Spanish from kindergarten. The numbers of children in each of the relevant groups defined by language and social background, grade, and education program were vastly different (ranging from 6 to 624), so non-parametric analyses were used and results need to be interpreted cautiously. The analyses of children’s performance on standardized tests of reading and mathematics showed better outcomes for children in bilingual programs than monolingual programs for both minority Spanish and majority English-speaking children, although there were differences in the size and timing of these effects for children from the two language backgrounds. Thus, all children profited from the bilingual education program, although not surprisingly their progress depended as well on other factors known to affect education outcomes.

One explanation that Marian and colleagues offer for the better mathematics outcomes for children in the bilingual programs is that the bilingualism achieved in these programs led to higher levels of executive function and that better executive function was the mechanism for the improvement in math performance. Several studies of young children in the early grades have demonstrated a direct relationship between children’s executive functioning and mathematics achievement ( Blair and Razza 2007 ; Bull, Espy, and Wiebe 2008 ) and a large body of research has established that bilingualism promotes the development of executive function in young children (see Barac et al. 2014 for review; Adesope et al. 2010 for meta-analysis). Importantly, children’s level of executive functioning predicts academic success ( Best, Miller, and Naglieri 2011 ; McClelland, Morrison, and Holmes 2000 ), and academic success predicts long-term health and well-being ( Duncan, Ziol-Guest, and Kalil 2010 ). Therefore, bilingual education may have a serendipitous effect in that it not only promotes bilingualism but also enhances a crucial aspect of cognitive performance.

There is a large and growing literature investigating the relation between bilingualism and executive functioning in young children, but three studies are particularly relevant. The first study is interesting because the results were unexpected. Mezzacappa (2004) used the children’s Attention Network Task ( Fan et al. 2002 ) to assess executive functioning in 6-year-old children who varied in SES (middle-class or low) and ethnicity (White, African-American, or Hispanic). In addition to expected effects of SES, he found that Hispanic children outperformed the other groups, particularly on the most difficult condition. Although he did not collect information about children’s language proficiency or level of bilingualism, he noted that 69% of the Hispanic children spoke Spanish at home, making them at least somewhat bilingual. Mezzacappa proposed that this bilingualism was responsible for the superior executive function performance by children in that group.

The second study was a relatively small-scale study that examined children from low SES communities in which about 90% of children received free or reduced-price lunch. Esposito and Baker-Ward (2013) administered two executive function tasks to children in kindergarten, second grade and fourth grade who were in a bilingual education or English-only program. Their results showed that children in second and fourth grades in the bilingual program outperformed children in the English program on the trail-making task, an executive function task that has previously been shown to be performed better by bilingual than monolingual 8-year-olds ( Bialystok 2010 ). There were no differences between children in the two kindergarten programs, but all these children found the task to be difficult. Because of the small sample size, the results need to be considered more suggestive than definitive, but they point to the possibility that even limited exposure to bilingual education improves children’s executive function.

Another small-scale study conducted with a population of middle-class children from kindergarten through second grade produced somewhat different results. Kaushanskaya, Gross, and Buac (2014) examined the effects of classroom bilingualism on executive functioning as measured by task shifting as well as measures of verbal memory and word learning. For task switching, they used the Dimensional Change Card Sorting Task ( Frye, Zelazo, and Palfai 1995 ), a task previously found to be performed better by bilingual than monolingual preschool children ( Bialystok 1999 ). There were no performance differences between children in the two programs on the executive function shifting task, but the task was arguably too easy for the children since it is typically used with younger children, or on a test of verbal short-term memory. However, tests of verbal working memory and word learning were performed better by the children in the bilingual education program.

In these three examples, children who were assigned to groups either because of ethnicity ( Mezzacappa 2004 ) or education program ( Esposito and Baker-Ward 2013 ; Kaushanskaya, Gross, and Buac 2014 ) were compared to controls for their performance on executive function tasks. A different approach is to use exposure to bilingual education as a scaled variable to determine if it is associated with executive function performance and thereby avoid between-groups comparisons. Two studies by Bialystok and Barac (2012) investigated the relation between the amount of time young children had spent in an immersion program and performance on executive function tasks. Children from monolingual English-speaking homes who were attending schools in which instruction was either in Hebrew (Study 1) or French (Study 2) were administered executive function and metalinguistic tasks. The tasks were different in both studies, but the results were the same: performance on the metalinguistic task was related to children’s verbal ability and intelligence but performance on the executive function task was related to the length of time children had spent in the bilingual program and their degree of bilingualism. Similar results were reported in two studies by Nicolay and Poncelet (2013 , 2015 ) showing better performance on executive function tasks for children in French immersion programs. In these studies, children were followed longitudinally, ruling out initial differences in ability. Thus, the results show that children’s level of executive function performance is related to their degree of bilingualism and experience with bilingual education.

Is bilingual education for everyone?

There have always been questions about whether bilingual education programs were appropriate for all children or whether they were an exclusive option best suited for high-achieving students with strong family support (see review and discussion in Cummins and Swain 1986 ). Equally, some have argued that bilingualism itself is difficult and should be reserved as a ‘privilege’ for children who face no additional burdens from linguistic or other cognitive challenges, a position strongly disputed by Kohnert (2007) . Unsurprisingly, the answer is not simple, but the evidence that exists supports Kohnert’s view that bilingualism adds no further cost to children’s achievement regardless of their initial levels of language and cognitive ability.

Consider first the role of intelligence, a variable on which all children differ. In one of the first studies on this issue, Genesee (1976) examined the role of IQ as measured by a standardized test on the development of French second-language abilities for children who were learning French either through immersion or foreign language instruction in school. The main result was that IQ was related to reading ability and language use for all children, but there was no association between IQ and overall communication ability; children at all levels of intelligence communicated with similar effectiveness. Importantly, there were no interactions with the type of program in which children were learning French: low IQ children in the immersion and foreign language program performed similarly to each other on all language and cognitive measures, in both cases performing more poorly than children with higher IQ scores in both programs. Thus, there was no evidence of any negative effect of participation in an immersion program for children whose measured intelligence was below average.

More serious than low IQ, however, is the possible role that a learning disability, such as specific language impairment (SLI), might play in children’s response to bilingual education. The limited evidence for this question is similar to that found for IQ, namely, that the deficit associated with SLI is not further exacerbated by bilingual education and has the additional consequence of imparting at least some measure of proficiency in another language. Few studies have investigated this question in the context of bilingual education, perhaps because children with language impairment are widely discouraged from attending bilingual education programs, but an early study by Bruck (1982) assessed language and cognitive outcomes for children in kindergarten and first grade in French immersion programs, some of whom had been diagnosed with language impairment. These were Anglophone children being educated through French, and linguistic measures for both French and English were included. The crucial comparison was the progress found for language-impaired children in the French immersion program and similar children in a mainstream English instruction program. There were no significant differences between these groups. Even though these children struggled, they did not struggle more than they would if they were in the bilingual program. This issue of selecting the appropriate comparison is central to the debate. Trites (1978) , for example, argued against placing children with learning disabilities in French immersion programs, but his comparison was based on children without learning disabilities in those programs rather than children with learning disabilities in monolingual English programs.

Aside from the role of bilingual education in children’s language development, it is difficult to compare skills in the two languages for children with SLI because the areas of linguistic difficulty associated with this disorder vary across languages ( Kohnert, Windsor, and Ebert 2009 ). With this caveat in mind, a few studies have examined the effect of SLI on language development for children who grow up bilingually. Korkman et al. (2012) compared monolingual Swedish speakers and Swedish-Finnish bilingual children who were 5–7 years old on a range of language assessments in Swedish. About half of the children in each language group were typically developing and half had been diagnosed with SLI. As expected, children with SLI performed more poorly than typically developing children on these linguistic measures, an outcome required by definition, but there was no added burden from bilingualism and no interaction of bilingualism and language impairment. Bilingual children also obtained lower scores on some vocabulary measures, but this occurred equally for bilingual children in the typically developing and SLI groups and is consistent with large-scale studies comparing the vocabulary of monolingual and bilingual children ( Bialystok et al. 2010 ).

Paradis et al. (2003) took a different approach to investigating syntactic proficiency in children with SLI. Rather than comparing children with SLI to typically developing children, they compared three groups of 7-year-old children, all of whom had been diagnosed with SLI: monolingual English speakers, monolingual French speakers, and English-French bilinguals. The sample was small and consisted of only 8 bilingual children, 21 English monolingual children, and 10 French monolingual children, so data were analyzed with non-parametric tests and results must be interpreted cautiously. The results showed no significant differences between the three groups of children in their mastery of morphosyntax; in other words, no additional delay to language acquisition could be attributed to bilingualism for children with SLI.

The most salient risk factor generally considered in this literature is not individual differences in children’s ability to become bilingual but rather low SES, a situation that applies to many bilingual Hispanic children in the US. Although it was discussed above in the context of testing outcomes of bilingual education, the issue is sufficiently important to warrant further consideration.

The main concern for Hispanic children from Spanish-speaking homes in the US is whether they will acquire adequate levels of English language proficiency and literacy to function in school and beyond. Although there is some controversy over this question, the majority of studies have shown improved outcomes with bilingual education ( Genesee and Lindholm-Leary 2012 ). This conclusion is supported by two major reviews and meta-analyses conducted first by Willig (1985) and then by Rolstad, Mahoney, and Glass (2005) for papers published after the Willig review. In a later review and meta-analysis, Francis, Lesaux, and August (2006) came to a broader and more emphatic conclusion: ‘there is no indication that bilingual instruction impedes academic achievement in either the native language or English, whether for language-minority students, students receiving heritage language instruction, or those enrolled in French immersion programs’ (397). The most persuasive evidence on this point comes from the large-scale longitudinal study and review conducted by Collier and Thomas (2004) that included every variety of bilingual education; the authors decide unequivocally for the superiority of bilingual education in developing the skills and knowledge of Hispanic and other at-risk children.

Contrary to this conclusion, Rossell and Baker (1996) argued that the effectiveness of bilingual education is inconclusive. As stated earlier, Rossell and Baker defined bilingual education narrowly and considered only programs that provided instruction through the first language for limited EP children, in other words, Spanish-speaking children in the US (although curiously they included some studies of Canadian French immersion in their analyses). However, this is only one of the many incarnations of bilingual education so while an evaluation of its effectiveness is important, that evaluation does not necessarily generalize to the broader concept, a point that Rossell and Baker acknowledge. Their review began with a list of 300 studies and then excluded 228 of them for a variety of methodological reasons, so the final sample of 72 studies that entered the meta-analysis may not be representative of this literature. However, Greene (1997) conducted a follow-up study from the same database using different inclusion criteria and reported that a meta-analysis found positive outcomes for bilingual education. The decision about inclusion or exclusion of specific studies is obviously crucial to the outcome; Rossell and Baker acknowledge that Willig’s (1985) positive conclusion can be traced to her choices on this important decision. However, it is impossible to adjudicate between these two conclusions regarding whether bilingual education is the most effective way to promote English language skills in limited English proficiency children ( Willig 1985 ) or not ( Rossell and Baker 1996 ) because the conclusions were based on different evidence. Yet, whether or not there are advantages, the evidence is clear that there is no cost to the development of English language skills in bilingual programs. What is completely uncontroversial is that bilingual education additionally maintains and develops Spanish skills in these children, an outcome that Rossell and Baker note but dismiss as irrelevant.

A different way of considering the impact of bilingual education on school outcomes for low SES Hispanic children in the US is to use data on the reclassification of children from ELL to EP, a decision made on the basis of English language and literacy test scores. In that sense, reclassification is an indication that adequate levels of English proficiency have been achieved. Lindholm-Leary and Block (2010) note that the probability of these children being designated as EP after 10 years of essentially mainstream English classrooms is only 40%, so the standard is low. However, Umansky and Reardon (2014) compared this reclassification rate for Hispanic students enrolled in either bilingual or English-only classrooms and found that these rates were lower in elementary school for children in bilingual programs than in English classrooms, but that the pattern reversed by the end of high school at which time children in bilingual programs had an overall higher rate of reclassification and better academic outcomes. As with some of the studies based on test scores, English proficiency takes several years to develop, but according to the reclassification data, it developed sooner in the bilingual programs.

In a review of studies that have examined the effect of various risk factors on children’s response to bilingual education, Genesee and Fortune (2014) found no case in which the bilingual education program contributed to lower academic outcomes for these children than for similar children in monolingual programs. Children with language disability, for example, will always find language tasks to be difficult; the important outcome of this research is that they do not find such tasks to be any more difficult in two languages than they are in one.

Evaluation of bilingual education for young children

In most evaluation research for educational programs, the conclusion tends to converge on a binary answer in which the program is considered to be either effective or not, or more or less effective than a control or alternative program. Given the complexity of bilingual education, such binary conclusions are inadequate. One reason is that independently of the quality of the program, bilingual education to some extent will almost inevitably help children to become bilingual or maintain bilingualism, an outcome that in itself is valuable but rarely considered in strict program evaluations. Some research has shown that even at early stages of bilingual education the cognitive advantages of bilingualism can be detected. Therefore, beyond the possible cognitive benefits of bilingualism described above are the intangible benefits of bilingual education such as potential to connect to extended family, increased opportunity for employment in a global economy, facilitation of travel and broadening of social spheres, and enrichment from widened horizons from language, arts, and culture. When successful, bilingual education offers a unique opportunity to impart the resources to sustain a valuable lifestyle asset. As one example, recent research has shown that lifelong bilingualism contributes to cognitive reserve and delays the onset of symptoms of dementia (reviews in Bak and Alladi 2014 ; Bialystok et al. 2016 ).

These consequences of bilingualism, however, should not bias the interpretation of the evidence regarding the educational efficacy of bilingual education. To undertake that assessment, it is necessary to return to the distinction between bilingual education and the education of bilingual children. The first is a general question about the feasibility of educating children through a language in which they may not be fully proficient; the second is a specific question about the appropriateness of this option for children whose circumstances and abilities may mitigate those educational outcomes.

Both questions can be considered in terms of two factors that permeate many of these studies: the type of outcome measured and the demographic profile of the children in the program. Regarding the first, the main distinction is whether the studies assessed language proficiency or some other cognitive or academic outcome. Most studies included an evaluation of language proficiency in the majority language (English for Hispanic children in the US, French immersion children in Canada, community language for indigenous language programs in the US and elsewhere) and some included assessments of proficiency in the minority language, which is often the language of instruction (e.g. Spanish in the US, French in Canada, Maori in New Zealand). Fewer studies examined assessments of other educational outcomes, such as mathematics, subject curricula, cognitive ability, retention rates, attitudes, or enrollment in higher education. The second factor is whether the children assessed in these studies were at risk of academic failure for any number of reasons, such as low SES, poor language proficiency, or individual difficulty from learning, language, or social challenges. This combination of factors creates four categories for which there are three possible outcomes: (a) no measurable difference between bilingual and standard programs, (b) some advantage for participation in a bilingual program, or (c) hardship for students in bilingual programs that leads to poorer outcomes than would be obtained in traditional programs. If we consider that all bilingual programs additionally support some degree of bilingualism, then the only negative outcome would be (c).

Regarding language assessments, most studies show that proficiency in the majority language is comparable for children in bilingual and mainstream classes, providing that an appropriate comparison group is used and sufficient time is allowed. Children in Canadian French immersion programs develop English language skills that are at least comparable to those of other middle-class children in English programs (and sometimes higher but there may be other factors involved because of the selectivity of French immersion, see Hutchins 2015 ), and Hispanic children in US bilingual education programs eventually develop English language skills that are comparable to those of similar Hispanic children in English programs, although it takes several years to reach that level. Proficiency in the minority language is inevitably lower than is found for a native speaker of those languages, even when it is the language of instruction, but is invariably higher than levels obtained by children in English programs who have had little exposure to that language. For language proficiency, therefore, there is no evidence of a cost to the development of either language, although it may take several years to establish desired levels.

For other subject material, outcomes depend in part on the language of testing. As Macnamara (1967) showed long ago, the extent to which a weak language is used to conduct achievement tests can make the test equally a test of language proficiency, impeding children’s demonstration of proficiency in the tested content. In many cases, studies that assess academic achievement provide inadequate information about the potential involvement of language proficiency so the test results are sometimes indeterminate. At the same time, Mondt and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that simply by teaching a subject through a particular language makes proficiency in that subject more fluent when tested in the language of schooling. Thus, there are reciprocal relationships between academic achievement and the language of school instruction, and these relationships are flexible.

The second factor is the characteristics of the children themselves. Children entering school with any learning or language disability or social disadvantage will struggle to succeed, so an evaluation of bilingual education needs to hold constant these abilities and select the appropriate comparison group. Thus, the relevant question is whether children struggle disproportionately more if they are in a bilingual education program. Here, too, the evidence seems clear: there is no additional burden for children with specific challenges in bilingual programs than in single language programs if the appropriate comparison is made. But even if there were additional effort required by bilingual education, it needs to be evaluated in terms of the potential benefits for that child – the possibility of acquiring a heritage language, the opportunity to develop at least some proficiency in another language, and the potential for attaining the cognitive benefits of bilingualism.

Bilingual education is not perfect and it is not one thing. At the same time, the quality of the research is uneven and it is difficult to determine how much weight should be assigned to contradictory outcomes. The research generally pays inadequate attention to the social context in which these complex processes play out, such as home literacy, parental education, children’s levels of language proficiency, ability of parents to support children’s education in that language, and numerous other factors. Rossell and Baker (1996) claim that the research is inconclusive, and although there is still much to be learned, the weight of evidence is firmly on the side of bilingual education. In this brief review of a small portion of bilingual education programs in different countries and aimed at educating different kinds of children, there is no evidence that it creates measurable obstacles to children’s school achievement. Some studies show no advantage of bilingual education over other programs, but those need to be interpreted in terms of the benefits of learning another language and gaining access to the cognitive advantages of bilingualism. Ultimately, a proper evaluation of bilingual education requires detailed description of the structure of the program, the quality of the teaching, and the match between children’s needs and abilities and the specific educational program being offered.

There is no single factor that can override the deep complexity of children’s development and prescribe a solution for an individual child, let alone a solution for all children. For both gifted children who are certain to excel and children who face challenges, the education program they follow, including participation in a bilingual program, may not fundamentally change their school experience. There is no credible evidence that bilingual education adds or creates burden for children, yet it is incontrovertible that it provides the advantage of learning another language and possibly the cognitive benefits of bilingualism. The over-riding conclusion from the available evidence is that bilingual education is a net benefit for all children in the early school years.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health [grant number R01HD052523].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

• Adesope OO, Lavin T, Thompson T, Ungerleider C. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Cognitive Correlates of Bilingualism. Review of Educational Research. 2010; 80 :207–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• August D, Shanahan T. Developing Literacy in Second-language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bak TH, Alladi S. Can Being Bilingual Affect the Onset of Dementia? Future Neurology. 2014; 9 :101–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker C. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Stroud: Multilingual Matters; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barac R, Bialystok E, Castro DC, Sanchez M. The Cognitive Development of Young Dual Language Learners: A Critical Review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2014; 29 :699–714. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett WS, Yarosz DJ, Thomas J, Jung K, Blanco D. Two-way and Monolingual English Immersion in Preschool Education: An Experimental Comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2007; 22 :277–293. [ Google Scholar ]
• Best JR, Miller PH, Naglieri JA. Relations Between Executive Function and Academic Achievement from Ages 5 to 17 in a Large, Representative National Sample. Learning and Individual Differences. 2011; 21 :327–336. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E. Cognitive Complexity and Attentional Control in the Bilingual Mind. Child Development. 1999; 70 :636–644. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E. Global-local and Trail-making Tasks by Monolingual and Bilingual Children: Beyond Inhibition. Developmental Psychology. 2010; 46 :93–105. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Abutalebi J, Bak TH, Burke DM, Kroll JF. Aging in Two Languages: Implications for Public Health. Ageing Research Reviews. 2016; 27 :56–60. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Barac R. Emerging Bilingualism: Dissociating Advantages for Metalinguistic Awareness and Executive Control. Cognition. 2012; 122 :67–73. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bialystok E, Luk G, Peets KF, Yang S. Receptive Vocabulary Differences in Monolingual and Bilingual Children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2010; 13 :525–531. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blair C, Razza RP. Relating Effortful Control, Executive Function, and False Belief Understanding to Emerging Math and Literacy Ability in Kindergarten. Child Development. 2007; 78 :647–663. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruck M. Language Impaired Children’s Performance in an Additive Bilingual Education Program. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1982; 3 :45–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bull R, Espy KA, Wiebe SA. Short-term Memory, Working Memory, and Executive Functioning in Preschoolers: Longitudinal Predictors of Mathematical Achievement at age 7 Years. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2008; 33 :205–228. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collier VP, Thomas WP. The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language Education for All. NABE Journal of Research and Practice. 2004; 2 :1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins James, John Macnamara. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No. 13. Washington, DC: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse; 1977. Immersion Education in Ireland: A Critical Review of Macnamara’s Findings. Reply to Dr. Cummins. Reply to the Reply. http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED140666 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins J, Swain M. Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research, and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, Ziol-Guest KM, Kalil A. Early-childhood Poverty and Adult Attainment, Behavior, and Health. Child Development. 2010; 81 :306–325. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durie A. Emancipatory Maori Education: Speaking from the Heart. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 1998; 11 :297–308. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esposito AG, Baker-Ward L. Dual-language Education for Low-income Children: Preliminary Evidence of Benefits for Executive Function. Bilingual Research Journal. 2013; 36 :295–310. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan J, McCandliss BD, Sommer T, Raz A, Posner MI. Testing the Efficiency and Independence of Attentional Networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2002; 14 :340–347. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fishman J. Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House; 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forum for Education and Democracy. Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Policy in Education. Washington, DC: The Forum for Education and Democracy; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Francis DJ, Lesaux N, August D. Language of Instruction. In: August D, Shanahan L, editors. Developing Literacy in Second-language Learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2006. pp. 365–413. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frye D, Zelazo PD, Palfai T. Theory of Mind and Rule-based Reasoning. Cognitive Development. 1995; 10 :483–527. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia O. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F. The Role of Intelligence in Second Language Learning. Language Learning. 1976; 26 :267–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F. Bilingual Education of Majority-language Children: The Immersion Experiments in Review. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1983; 4 :1–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F. What Do We Know About Bilingual Education for Majority Language Students. In: Bhatia TK, Ritchie W, editors. Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2004. pp. 547–576. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F, Fortune T. Bilingual Education and at-risk Students. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education. 2014; 2 :165–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genesee F, Lindholm-Leary K. The Education of English Language Learners. In: Harris K, Graham S, Urdan T, editors. APA Handbook of Educational Psychology. Washington, DC: APA Books; 2012. pp. 499–526. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene JP. A Meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker Review of Bilingual Education Research. Bilingual Research Journal. 1997; 21 :103–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Han WJ. Bilingualism and Academic Achievement. Child Development. 2012; 83 :300–321. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermanto N, Moreno S, Bialystok E. Linguistic and Metalinguistic Outcomes of Intense Immersion Education: How Bilingual? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2012; 15 :131–145. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchins A. Just Say ‘Non’: The Problem with French Immersion. Macleans Magazine. 2015 http://www.macleans.ca/education/just-say-non-the-problem-with-french-immersion/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaushanskaya M, Gross M, Buac M. Effects of Classroom Bilingualism on Task-shifting, Verbal Memory, and Word Learning in Children. Developmental Science. 2014; 17 :564–583. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohnert K. Language Disorders in Bilingual Children and Adults. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohnert K, Windsor J, Ebert KD. Primary or ‘Specific’ Language Impairment and Children Learning a Second Language. Brain and Language. 2009; 109 :101–111. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korkman M, Stenroos M, Mickos A, Westman M, Ekholm P, Byring R. Does Simultaneous Bilingualism Aggravate Children’s Specific Language Problems? Acta Paediatrica. 2012; 101 :946–952. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563. 1974 [ Google Scholar ]
• Lepage JF, Corbeil JP. The Evolution of English–French Bilingualism in Canada from 1961 to 2011. Statistics Canada; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindholm-Leary K. Bilingual and Biliteracy Skills in Young Spanish-speaking Low-SES Children: Impact of Instructional Language and Primary Language Proficiency. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2014; 17 :144–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindholm-Leary K, Block N. Achievement in Predominantly Low SES/Hispanic Dual Language Schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2010; 13 :43–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez MG, Tashakkori A. Narrowing the Gap: Effects of a Two-way Bilingual Education Program on the Literacy Development of at-risk Primary Students. Journal of Education For Students Placed At Risk. 2004; 9 :325–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macnamara J. The Effects of Instruction in a Weaker Language. Journal of Social Issues. 1967; 23 :121–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marian V, Shook A, Schroeder SR. Bilingual Two-way Immersion Programs Benefit Academic Achievement. Bilingual Research Journal. 2013; 36 :167–186. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• May S, Hill R. Maori-medium Education: Current Issues and Challenges. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2005; 8 :377–403. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarty TL, Watahomigie LJ. Indigenous Community-based Language Education in the USA. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 1998; 11 :309–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• McClelland MM, Morrison FJ, Holmes DL. Children at Risk for Early Academic Problems: The Role of Learning-related Social Skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2000; 15 :307–329. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehisto P, Genesee F, editors. Building Bilingual Education Systems: Forces, Mechanisms and Counterweights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezzacappa E. Alerting, Orienting, and Executive Attention: Developmental Properties and Sociodemographic Correlates in an Epidemiological Sample of Young, Urban Children. Child Development. 2004; 75 :1373–1386. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mondt K, Struys E, Van den Noort M, Baleriaux D, Metens T, Paquier P, Van de Craen P, Bosch P, Denolin V. Neural Differences in Bilingual Children’s Arithmetic Processing Depending on Language of Instruction. Mind, Brain, and Education. 2011; 5 :79–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montanari S. A Case Study of Bi-literacy Development among Children Enrolled in an Italian–English Dual Language Program in Southern California. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2013; 17 :509–525. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicolay A-C, Poncelet M. Cognitive Advantage in Children Enrolled in a Second-language Immersion Elementary School Program for Three Years. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2013; 16 :597–607. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicolay A-C, Poncelet M. Cognitive Benefits in Children Enrolled in an Early Bilingual Immersion School: A Follow Up Study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2015; 18 :789–795. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nieto D. A Brief History of Bilingual Education in the United States. Perspectives on Urban Education. 2009; 6 :61–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ovando CJ. Bilingual Education in the United States: Historical Development and Current Issues. Bilingual Education in the United States. 2003; 27 :1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Padilla AM, Fan L, Xu X, Silva D. A Mandarin/English Two-way Immersion Program: Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement. Foreign Language Annals. 2013; 46 :661–679. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paradis J, Crago M, Genesee F, Rice M. French-English Bilinguals with SLI: How Do They Compare with Their Monolingual Peers? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2003; 46 :113–127. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rolstad K, Mahoney K, Glass GV. The Big Picture: A Meta-analysis of Program Effectiveness Research on English Language Learners. Educational Policy. 2005; 19 :572–594. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosier P, Holm W. The Rock Point Experience: A Longitudinal Study of a Navajo School Program. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rossell CH, Baker K. The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Research in the Teaching of English. 1996; 30 :7–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz M. The Impact of the First Language First Model on Vocabulary Development among Preschool Bilingual Children. Reading and Writing. 2013; 27 :709–732. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz M, Shaul Y. Narrative Development among Language-minority Children: The Role of Bilingual Versus Monolingual Preschool Education. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 2013; 26 :36–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spelke ES, Tsivkin S. Language and Number: A Bilingual Training Study. Cognition. 2001; 78 :45–88. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swain M, Lapkin S. Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters; 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trites R. Learning Disabilities in Immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review. 1978; 5 :888–889. [ Google Scholar ]
• Troike RC. Research Evidence for the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. NABE Journal. 1978; 3 :13–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Umansky IM, Reardon SF. Reclassification Patterns among Latino English Learner Students in Bilingual, Dual Immersion, and English Immersion Classrooms. American Educational Research Journal. 2014; 51 :879–912. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willig A. A Meta-analysis of Selected Studies on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Review of Educational Research. 1985; 55 :269–317. [ Google Scholar ]

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Bilingual Education — The Benefits Of Bilingual Education In The Modern World

The Benefits of Bilingual Education in The Modern World

• Categories: Bilingual Education

About this sample

Words: 901 |

Published: Jun 7, 2021

Words: 901 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited:

• Alter, R. (2018). The Hebrew Bible: A translation with commentary. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Bertrand, L. D. (2018). A reflection on the book of Job. Journal of Religious Thought, 74(1), 31-47.
• Hamilton, V. P. (1999). Handbook on the historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther. Baker Academic.
• Johnson, J. J. (2011). Suffering and the Book of Job. In The Absence of God: Exploring the Christian Tradition in a Situation of Mourning (pp. 87-95). Routledge.
• Levine, E. (2010). The book of Job. Yale University Press.
• Newsom, C. A. (2005). The book of Job: A contest of moral imaginations. Oxford University Press.
• Ogbonnaya, U. I. (2016). A philosophical and theological critique of the book of Job: The struggle between order and freedom. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
• Schreiber, M. (2013). The Book of Job: A Biography. Princeton University Press.
• Smith, J. E. (2012). The wisdom literature of the Bible. Abingdon Press.
• Stott, J. R. W. (2006). The cross of Christ. InterVarsity Press.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6 pages / 2900 words

2 pages / 848 words

1 pages / 472 words

3 pages / 1391 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Bilingual Education

Bilingual education, a system that offers instruction in two languages, has gained recognition and popularity for its numerous advantages in recent years. It provides students with the opportunity to develop proficiency in two [...]

Bilingual education has been a topic of debate in the United States for decades. Richard Rodriguez, in his book "Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez," presents a controversial perspective on bilingual education. [...]

Bilingual education is an approach to learning that involves the use of two languages, typically the student's native language and a second language. This approach has been gaining popularity in recent years, as educators and [...]

Many are born into families where more than one language is spoken, and there may be a different language spoken outside of the household. This flow of linguistic information is somehow encoded into the brains of those bilingual [...]

Bilingualism offers a unique perspective on language acquisition and cognitive development, challenging conventional notions of language proficiency and highlighting the benefits that come with mastering multiple languages. This [...]

In this essay I am going to reveal topic of bilingual education in the conxect of attitude changes to English teaching for foreign speakers (TESOL), in addition to other topics such as CLIL and EME, backing up my essay with [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Get essential daily news for the Fort Worth area.

Sign up for insightful, in-depth stories — completely free.

Privacy Policy

Thank you for registering! Watch your inbox for our newsletters.

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Fort Worth Report

Free. Fair. Local.

Bilingual dementia program provides mental health education to Hispanic communities in Tarrant County

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

When Reynaldo Garza, 79, was diagnosed with dementia two years ago, his daughter Blanca Saenz was worried. 

She wasn’t scared about her father’s diagnosis, but was concerned about her family’s lack of knowledge regarding dementia. Saenz took it upon herself to learn as much as she could, she said. 

Still, Saenz worried her Spanish-speaking mother, who is Garza’s primary caregiver, didn’t have enough information, support and resources about dementia. 

“For my parents, it’s a bit more challenging for them to be able to go, learn and ask for help,” she said. 

Hispanic families often struggle with the issue of not having access to dementia education in Spanish, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. In order to combat the information barrier, James L. West Center for Dementia Care launched its Cerebro Sano , or “Healthy Brain,” program in 2023. 

One year later , the program’s outreach continues to grow across Tarrant County to increase awareness, risk reduction and knowledge about Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.

‘Meet people where they are’

More than 617,000 Hispanic people live in Tarrant County. About 21% of the Tarrant County population over the age of 18 speaks Spanish at home. 

Scientists predict that cases of Latinos with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias will quadruple by 2060, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . That makes outreach like bilingual education and Alzheimer’s programs more important, said Tia Viera, director of bilingual education at James L. West. 

“The folks in the Latino community have a lot of fear and stigma about dementia,” she said. “They don’t want to come in because of myths and taboos associated with it. My goal is to find those individuals and offer a very targeted education to help them.”

Cerebro Sano’s classes include:

• Dealing with Dementia/Lidiar con la demencia: four-hour workshop for caregivers to receive support and increase dementia knowledge. 
• Dementia Live/Demencia en vivo: simulation that immerses participants with what it would be like to experience cognitive decline and sensory changes. 
• Normal vs. Not Normal Aging: session discusses causes of memory loss and explores differences between normal and abnormal aging related to brain health. 
• 4-Part Healthy Brain Aging Series: program promotes independent aging by focusing on areas shown to reduce risk of developing dementia.
• Stress Less with James L. West/Estrésate menos con James L. West: interactive sessions where attendees learn to manage stress for better brain health.

James L. West also hosts once-a-month classes for older Hispanic adults at different community health centers in Las Vegas Trail, Northside and Diamond Hill. 

Interested in signing up for the Cerebro Sano program?

Contact Tia Viera via email at [email protected] or 817-877-1225 for more information or to sign up for the program you wish to attend.

Cerebro Sano is open to anyone who speaks Spanish and is interested in learning about dementia. The program uses a referral system to reach as much of the Latino community as possible. A partner organization can refer patients to Cerebro Sano, and Cerebro Sano can refer patients to outside resources. 

“The bilingual education program is not a pipeline to bring people to James L. West,” said Viera. “We want to meet people where they are. People would go to a program that’s in their community.” 

In its first year, the program has attracted over 1,260 attendees and partnered with nearly 20 Tarrant County organizations.

Looks to grow

James L. West Center for Dementia Care Bilingual Education Program is funded through a two-year American Rescue Plan Act grant from Tarrant County. That funding, which came from a federal COVID-19 relief program, is set to end in December. 

One of the organization’s main priorities in the next few months is to seek new donors and grants to continue the Cerebro Sano program. Viera is confident James L. West will be able to secure the funding, she said. 

In the meantime, the organization is working to expand partnerships to medical groups, clinics and practitioners who treat Hispanic patients, so that they can be a referral source.

James L. West also hopes to connect with residents through hosting the second annual Sonidos del Summer concert series starting May 18 at Marine Park in Fort Worth.

“The concert series was a perfect fit, because music is a big part of healing and care for dementia patients,” said Dora Tovar, PR and marketing consultant with James L. West. “We want to celebrate music and cultural interaction.” 

Saenz and her family have utilized the Cerebro Sano program since its launch. Her mother took part in the four-hour workshop for caregivers and it’s made a big difference in how supported she feels, said Saenz. 

“This was amazing for (Saenz’s mother) to know that there are resources out there she could utilize to help her not to be afraid,” she said. “When your spouse is diagnosed with dementia, there are so many unknowns.” 

Saenz recently joined the James L. West’s Bilingual Education Advisory Council to advocate for Hispanic communities in Tarrant County and help define, review and revise the program. 

“I am so humbled by the opportunity and am so excited to let the Hispanic community know these resources are available,” she said. 

David Moreno is the health reporter for the Fort Worth Report. His position is supported by a grant from Texas Health Resources. Contact him at [email protected] or @davidmreports on X.

At the Fort Worth Report, news decisions are made independently of our board members and financial supporters. Read more about our editorial independence policy here .

Related news

Republish This Story

Noncommercial entities may republish our articles for free by following our guidelines. For commercial licensing, please email [email protected].

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

• Look for the "Republish This Story" button underneath each story. To republish online, simply click the button, copy the html code and paste into your Content Management System (CMS). Do not copy stories straight from the front-end of our web-site.
• You are required to follow the guidelines and use the republication tool when you share our content. The republication tool generates the appropriate  html code.
• You can’t edit our stories, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style.
• You can’t sell or syndicate our stories.
• Any web site our stories appear on must include a contact for your organization.
• If you use our stories in any other medium — for example, newsletters or other email campaigns — you must make it clear that the stories are from the Fort Worth Report. In all emails, link directly to the story at fortworthreport.org and not to your website.
• If you share our stories on social media, please tag us in your posts using  @FortWorthReport  on Facebook and  @FortWorthReport  on Twitter.
• You have to credit Fort Worth Report. Please use “Author Name, Fort Worth Report” in the byline. If you’re not able to add the byline, please include a line at the top of the story that reads: “This story was originally published by Fort Worth Report” and include our website, fortworthreport.org .
• Our stories may appear on pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories.
• You can only publish select stories individually — not as a collection.

by David Moreno, Fort Worth Report April 27, 2024

This <a target="_blank" href="https://fortworthreport.org/2024/04/27/bilingual-dementia-program-provides-mental-health-education-to-hispanic-communities-in-tarrant-county/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://fortworthreport.org">Fort Worth Report</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://i0.wp.com/fortworthreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/cropped-favicon.png?fit=150%2C150&amp;quality=80&amp;ssl=1" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;"><img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://fortworthreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=124320" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

David Moreno Health Reporter

David Moreno is the health reporter at Fort Worth Report. Prior to the FWR, he covered health care and biotech at the Dallas Business Journal. He earned his Bachelors of Arts in broadcast journalism and... More by David Moreno

We've recently sent you an authentication link. Please, check your inbox!

Sign in with a password below, or sign in using your email .

Get a code sent to your email to sign in, or sign in using a password .

Enter the code you received via email to sign in, or sign in using a password .

Subscribe to our newsletters:

• Weekend Worthy Events (Weekly)
• Arlington Report
• Green Report (Monthly Environment News) testtest test tes
• News Alerts (Occasional)
• Sponsored Emails
• Event Invitations (Occasional)
• The Gov't Report (Weekly)
• The School Report (Weekly)
• The Business Report (Weekly)
• Weekend Reader (Sat)
• Daily Report (Mon-Fri)

Sign in with your email

Lost your password?

Try a different email

Send another code

Sign in with a password