Bilingual Education: An Overview

Bilingual Education: An Overview

Order Code 98-501 EPW
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Bilingual Education: An Overview
Updated June 7, 2001
Patricia Osorio-O’Dea
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Bilingual Education: An Overview
Summary
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) administers the Bilingual Education Act
(BEA), the federal education program specifically intended for limited English
proficient (LEP) children. The BEA, among other things, authorizes competitive
grants for local school districts to assist them in educating elementary and secondary
LEP students. The FY2001 appropriation for the BEA is $296 million. The BEA
supports nearly 1000 projects nationwide.
The BEA plays a relatively modest role in the education of LEP children. In
total, there are an estimated 3.4 million LEP children in the United States with only
12% served in BEA projects. Most LEP children are served in local, state, and other
federal programs which address, at least in part, their special educational needs.
These programs utilize a wide array of instructional models for LEP children.
Although conceptually distinct, many of these models are difficult to distinguish in
practice. Fundamentally, these models may be differentiated by the role of the child’s
native language. At one end of the spectrum, bilingual education projects use the
native language for both English acquisition and academic learning in all subjects.
Toward the other end of the spectrum, English as a Second Language (ESL),
sheltered English, and immersion projects may place very little emphasis on the native
language while expecting a relatively rapid grasp of English. The most recent
estimate available is that states spend at least $690 million on LEP children for
bilingual education and ESL training. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) Title I program for educationally disadvantaged children is reported to reach
1.5 million LEP students.
Congressional interest in the BEA centers on the appropriate federal role in
meeting the special needs of the LEP population. In particular, attention is focusing
on questions such as the role of the native language in instructing LEP children and
how long it takes LEP students to master English.
The Congress considered several proposals to reauthorize the BEA in the 106th
Congress. The 107th Congress has again been considering legislation to reauthorize
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including the BEA. H.R. 1,
the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” was passed by the House on May 23, 2001.
S. 1, the “Better Education for Students and Teachers Act” was reported in the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and is currently under
consideration, as amended by SA358, in the Senate. Both bills would establish
consolidated formula grant programs for the education of LEP students and would
emphasize increasing LEP students’ English proficiency as quickly as possible. The
bills would also require annual assessments of LEP students’ English proficiency and
testing of LEP students in English after 3 years. Issues surrounding the schooling of
LEP children may continue to develop as the reauthorization discussions continue.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Civil Rights Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
State and Local Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Bilingual Education Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Instructional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Selected Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Role of Native Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Length of Time in Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Bilingual Education Instructional Services Grants, ESEA Title VII,
Part A, Subpart 1, FY2000 National Total of Projects and Total Funding
by Grant Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Bilingual Education Instructional Services Grants, ESEA Title VII,
Part A, Subpart 1, FY2000 Total Obligations Aggregated by Grant
Type and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. Bilingual Education Support Services, ESEA Title VII, Part A,
Subpart 2, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4. Bilingual Education Professional Development, ESEA Title VII,
Part A, Subpart 3, FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5. Bilingual Education Act, Authorization, Budget Request,
and Appropriations, Current Dollars, FY1984-FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Bilingual Education: An Overview
“Bilingual education” is a term that has both a specific and generic meaning with
respect to children who do not know English. Not only is bilingual education a
distinct instructional approach, but it is also a term that refers broadly to the assorted
special efforts to educate and serve limited English proficient (LEP) students (more
recently termed “English language learners” (ELL)). Local, state, and federal
programs in the area represent numerous theories and practices that may also go by
such terms as “English as a second language” and “English for speakers of other
languages.” For the purposes of this report, we use the term “bilingual education” in
both its precise and broad meaning.
This report provides background information on bilingual education for
elementary and secondary students; describes the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), the
federal education program specifically intended for LEP children; and reviews some
selected issues in the field. This report will be updated to reflect program
developments as they occur.
Background
Population
Recent estimates indicate that there are over 3.4 million LEP students in the
U.S.1 (Precise estimates of the LEP population are not available due to the lack of
a standard definition of LEP.) Although concentrated in five states — California,
Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois — LEP students are present in almost half of
the nation’s school districts (46%).2 Approximately 7% of total K-12 enrollment
across the country during the 1996-1997 school year was classified as LEP. Since the
1990-1991 school year, the size of the LEP population has increased an estimated
55%.3
1National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Summary Report of the Survey of the
States’ Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs and
Services, 1996-1997. Washington, 1998. (Hereafter cited as NCBE, Summary Report 1996-
1997.) The Summary Report 1996-1997 is the source for data in this paragraph unless
otherwise indicated.
2Department of Education. A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient
Students: Screening Methods, Program Support, and Teacher Training (Schools and
Staffing Survey 1993-1994). Washington, 1997. (Hereafter cited as ED, A Profile of
Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students.)
3For more information on demographic trends of the LEP population see: General Accounting
(continued...)

CRS-2
In all, LEP pupils speak over 100 languages; however, Spanish is the most
common native language, spoken by about three-fourths of all LEP children. A 1993
study of LEP children found that most LEP students are young — more than two out
of three are in grades K-6, 18% are in grades 7-9, and 14% are in grades 10-12.4
(There may be several explanations for this finding such as the eventual acquisition
of English skills or dropping out due to school failure.)
Programs
Civil Rights Context. The education of LEP children is shaped by federal
civil rights laws that set the legal framework within which they must be served. Title
VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 19645 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,
color, and national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. Title VI does
not specifically refer to LEP individuals as a protected class. However, court
interpretations of Title VI have extended the statute to LEP students. The 1974
Supreme Court case, Lau v. Nichols,6 found that the San Francisco school system had
failed to provide supplemental English language instruction to its LEP students. The
Court held that the school system had thus violated Title VI by denying these children
a meaningful opportunity to receive a public education. Through the Lau precedent
and subsequent U.S. Department of Education (ED) guidelines, LEP children must
have equal access to schooling, including, if necessary, special programming that
allows them an opportunity to effectively participate in public education.7 ED does
not specifically require native language based bilingual education; alternative
approaches may be utilized within guidelines.
Another federal statute, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA),8 also
entitles LEP children to bilingual services in certain circumstances. In Castaneda v.
Pickard,9 a three-part test was developed for determining whether under the EEOA
schools had failed to take appropriate action to help LEP students overcome language
barriers. Together, these civil rights laws compose the backdrop against which the
programs described below are evaluated, and protect LEP students in places where
no formal programs exist.
3(...continued)
Office. Limited English Proficiency: A Growing and Costly Educational Challenge Facing
Many School Districts. Washington, 1994.
4Development Associates. Descriptive Study of Services to Limited English Proficient
Students, Volume 1, Summary of Findings and Conclusions. Arlington, VA, 1993.
(Hereafter cited as Development Associates, Descriptive Study Summary.)
542 U.S.C. § 2000d.
6414 U.S. 563 (1974).
7For more information on Title VI and its application and requirements, see Department of
Education. The Provision of an Equal Education Opportunity to Limited English Proficient
Students. Washington, 1992.
820 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq.
9648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).

CRS-3
Models. There are several models for instructing LEP students. Although
conceptually distinct, many of these models are difficult to distinguish in practice.10
Fundamentally, these models may be differentiated by the role of the child’s native
language. At one end of the spectrum, bilingual education programs utilize the
students’ native language for both English acquisition and academic learning in all
subjects. Toward the other end of the spectrum, English as a Second Language
(ESL), sheltered English, and immersion programs may place very little emphasis on
the native language while expecting a relatively rapid grasp of English (2-3 years).
Finally, in submersion programs, LEP students are placed in English-only classes
without any accommodations.11
Bilingual education programs may be further identified by the expected progress
of LEP students. “Transitional” bilingual projects12 are intended to move LEP
students along relatively quickly (2-3 years), while “developmental” bilingual
projects13 are geared to the more gradual mastering of English and native language
skills (5-7 years). Finally, “two-way” bilingual projects14 mix LEP and English
proficient students together and steadily expose them to each other’s language.
Overall, it appears that ESL projects are the most common programming option
used by schools for LEP students, particularly with older student populations.15
Transitional bilingual education is the most frequent approach utilized in native
language based projects.16
State and Local Programs. There are an array of laws and programs at the
federal, state, and local levels for the education of LEP students. LEP students are
more likely to be served in state and local programs, or in federal programs other than
the BEA. (Federal programs are discussed below.) According to the National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, of the 50 states, all but seven17 have some
form of regulations for the provision of English language instruction for LEP
students, ranging from mandates that local educational agencies (LEAs) provide
native language-based bilingual education to guidance that LEAs offer some modified
instruction for non-English speaking children. Among the states with regulations for
10Adding further confusion is the use of different labels for the same model.
11Sometimes known as “sink-or-swim.”
12Also known as “early-exit” bilingual education.
13Also known as “late-exit” or “maintenance” bilingual education.
14Also known as “dual language” bilingual education.
15ED, A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students.
16National Research Council. Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children: A
Research Agenda. Washington, 1997. (Hereafter cited as NRC, Improving Schooling for
Language-Minority Children.)
17National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. State Survey of Legislative Requirements
for Educating Limited English Proficient Students. 1999. (Hereafter cited as NCBE, State
Survey of Legislative Requirements.) According to the survey, these states include: Alabama,
Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

CRS-4
language services for LEP students, seven do not contribute any state aid earmarked
for instructional programs for LEP children. Due to the different means by which
states finance bilingual education programs, it is difficult to estimate total state
spending in this area.
Among the major variations in state and local bilingual education programs are
rules on entering and exiting. There is no standard definition of limited English
proficiency. Jurisdictions apply different criteria when deciding if a child is eligible
for bilingual education. Likewise, there are no uniform rules for when a child should
exit a bilingual education program and enter mainstream classes. Typically, the length
of stay reflects the program’s philosophy (i.e., shorter for quick transition, longer for
dual language development). New York and Washington generally place a 3-year
limit on the participation of LEP students in English instructional programs.18
California and Arizona recently passed legislation (discussed later in this report) which
calls for a single year of sheltered English immersion for LEP students, with
exceptions for certain children.
Federal Programs. There are several federal programs that serve LEP
students. (The BEA, the principal federal program, is described separately below.)
Indeed, the Title I, part A program for educationally disadvantaged children
authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reaches a
larger number of LEP children than BEA. (Only an estimated 12% of LEP children
are served in BEA projects.)19 The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L.
103-382, among other things, lifted a prior restriction in Title I on serving LEP
children. Title I funds, however, may not be used for LEP services otherwise required
by law.20 In the 1996-1997 school year, an estimated 1.8 million LEP students
participated in Title I.21 The services they received under Title I may have addressed
their special language needs, or other academic deficiencies unrelated to their LEP
status. Other ED programs that may address, at least in part, the educational needs
of LEP students include the ESEA Title VII, Part C Emergency Immigrant Education
Program; ESEA Title VII, Part B Foreign Language Assistance Program; ESEA Title
I, Part C Migrant Education Program; vocational education (Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act); and special education
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
18New York and Washington allow exceptions to the 3-year rule for individual students.
19NCBE, Summary Report 1996-1997.
20For more information on the 1994 changes in Title I for LEP children, see: CRS Report 94-
968, Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of 1994 ESEA Title I Amendments Under
P.L. 103-382, by Wayne C. Riddle.
21NCBE, Summary Report, 1996-1997.

CRS-5
Bilingual Education Act
History
The BEA was initially created in 1968 as a supplemental grant program to assist
local school districts to teach students who do not know English. Since its inception,
the BEA has been amended and extended several times, most recently in 1994 by the
Improving America’s Schools Act, P.L. 103-382.22 Among the significant changes
in the 1994 reauthorization were the establishment of new categories of local bilingual
education grants, the elimination of mandatory research projects, and the
establishment of new categories of personnel training grants.23 (These new features
are described below.)
Programs
Currently, the BEA is authorized in ESEA Title VII, Part A through FY2000.24
The BEA is organized into three subparts:
! Subpart 1 — Instructional Services — authorizes four types of competitive
grants for LEAs to fund bilingual education projects;
! Subpart 2 — Support Services — authorizes five activities intended to support
schools and educators in the teaching of LEP children;
! Subpart 3 — Professional Development — authorizes four types of grants for
teacher training.
Instructional Services. ED usually conducts annual competitions for
interested LEAs for four types of LEA grants:
! Program development and implementation. Three-year grants for new
English language instruction projects;
! Program enhancement. Two-year grants to enhance or expand existing
projects;
! Comprehensive school. Five-year grants for comprehensive reform at a
school site with a heavy concentration of LEP students;
! Systemwide improvement. Five-year grants for programmatic reform within
a school district with a high enrollment of LEP students.
Grants are discretionary, awarded based upon the quality ranking of applications, with
priority for those projects working to develop bilingual proficiency among its
students. Consistent with the grant category, LEAs use funds for bilingual education
and “special alternative instruction projects.” Special alternative instruction projects
include those educational approaches that do not rely upon the student’s native
22For most of its history, there have been three basic activities under the BEA: local bilingual
education grants, research and support activities, and teacher training.
23For more information on the 1994 changes in the BEA, see: CRS Report 94-872, Improving
America’s Schools Act: An Overview of P.L. 103-382, by James B. Stedman.
2420 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.

CRS-6
language, such as ESL and immersion. Grants to LEAs using funds for special
alternative instruction projects, however, may not exceed 25% of all grants. In other
words, there is a BEA funding cap of 25% for special alternative instruction projects.
There is a statutory exception to this cap when an otherwise qualified LEA
demonstrates that either due to the linguistic diversity of its LEP population, or a
shortage of qualified staff, it cannot implement a bilingual education project.25
Tables 1 and 2 present program information for BEA instructional services
grants in FY2000.
Table 1. Bilingual Education Instructional Services Grants,
ESEA Title VII, Part A, Subpart 1, FY2000 National Total of
Projects and Total Funding by Grant Type
Grant type
Number of projects
Total FY2000 grant awards
Program enhancement
70
$9,446,715
Systemwide improvement
77
$36,306,935
Comprehensive school
341
$84,592,252
Development &
203
$31,682,869
implementation
Total
691
$162,028,771
Source: U.S. Department of Education. Unpublished data.
25The actual percentage of BEA instructional services grants funding awarded to special
alternative instructional projects is not known.

CRS-7
Table 2. Bilingual Education Instructional Services Grants,
ESEA Title VII, Part A, Subpart 1, FY2000 Total Obligations
Aggregated by Grant Type and State
Development &
Program
Comprehensive
Systemwide
State
Implementation
Enhancement
School
Improvement
Totals
Alabama
—
$137,825
—
—
$137,825
Alaska
—
—
$627,361
—
$627,361
Arizona
$1,773,780
$150,000
$4,824,100
$1,302,449
$8,050,329
Arkansas
—
—
—
—
$0
California
$10,405,219
$2,836,484
$33,260,841
$12,181,744
$58,684,288
Colorado
$1,201,589
$211,000
$247,000
$1,836,114
$3,495,703
Connecticut
$325,000
—
$1,236,057
—
$1,561,057
Delaware
—
—
—
—
$0
District of Columbia
$91,739
—
$243,212
$570,500
$905,451
Florida
$742,114
$517,097
$2,164,537
$1,762,600
$5,186,348
Georgia
$60,000
—
—
$70,000
$130,000
Hawaii
$459,830
$100,000
$280,978
—
$840,808
Idaho
—
—
$491,959
$307,243
$799,202
Illinois
$502,658
$121,123
$1,030,131
$873,527
$2,527,439
Indiana
$161,434
—
—
—
$161,434
Iowa
$165,200
—
—
$808,604
$973,804
Kansas
—
$88,301
$198,000
$434,296
$720,597
Kentucky
$174,978
$75,000
—
—
$249,978
Louisiana
$305,000
$140,420
$427,263
—
$872,683
Maine
$760,804
$299,935
$305,310
—
$1,366,049
Maryland
—
—
—
—
$0
Massachusetts
$686,240
$301,598
$2,097,999
$650,000
$3,735,837
Michigan
$153,300
$146,312
$611,362
$1,024,082
$1,935,056
Minnesota
$171,732
$102,137
$994,686
—
$1,268,555
Mississippi
—
$150,000
—
—
$150,000
Missouri
—
—
—
—
$0
Montana
$1,048,237
$249,270
$1,266,269
$965,550
$3,529,326
Nebraska
$467,671
$130,000
—
$498,000
$1,095,671
Nevada
—
$120,989
—
—
$120,989
New Hampshire
—
—
—
—
$0
New Jersey
—
—
$799,244
—
$799,244
New Mexico
$684,084
$442,598
$3,817,134
$1,547,860
$6,491,676
New York
$3,520,950
$598,643
$13,860,041
$4,586,158
$22,565,792
North Carolina
$325,000
—
—
—
$325,000
North Dakota
$449,597
—
$952,985
—
$1,402,582
Ohio
$174,960
—
—
—
$174,960
Oklahoma
$3,571,396
$474,606
$4,931,337
—
$8,977,339
Oregon
$824,853
$542,497
$300,000
—
$1,667,350

CRS-8
Development &
Program
Comprehensive
Systemwide
State
Implementation
Enhancement
School
Improvement
Totals
Pennsylvania
—
—
—
$629,946
$629,946
Rhode Island
—
—
—
—
$0
Puerto Rico
—
—
—
—
$0
South Carolina
—
—
—
—
$0
South Dakota
—
—
$2,213,222
—
$2,213,222
Tennessee
—
—
—
—
$0
Texas
$1,544,038
$831,084
$5,117,327
$5,100,810
$12,593,259
Utah
$157,266
$106,082
—
$291,097
$554,445
Vermont
$178,093
—
—
—
$178,093
Virginia
$173,735
$130,128
—
—
$303,863
Washington
$312,740
$145,513
$1,547,246
$480,351
$2,485,850
West Virginia
—
—
—
—
$0
Wisconsin
$109,632
$148,375
$276,716
—
$534,723
Wyoming
—
—
$274,685
$386,004
$660,689
Guam
—
—
—
—
$0
Micronesia
—
—
—
—
$0
Palau
—
$149,698
$195,250
—
$344,948
Marshall Islands
—
—
—
—
$0
Total
$31,682,869
$9,446,715
$84,592,252
$36,306,935
$162,028,77
Source: U.S. Department of Education. Unpublished data.
Note: State amounts are aggregated awards to LEAs within state; states are not grant recipients.
LEA grants are competitive, awarded based upon the quality ranking of applications.
Support Services. ED funds four activities under Subpart 2 — Research,
Evaluation, and Dissemination, that are intended to assist school districts and teachers
in improving the education of LEP students:
! State Educational Agency (SEA) grants — provides technical assistance to
LEAs related to program design, capacity building, evaluation and assessment
of student performance, and data collection.
! Research — grants and contracts for data gathering related to improving
education of LEP students.
! Academic Excellence projects — provides awards to promote the
establishment of high-quality instruction and professional development
programs serving LEP students.
! National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education — collects, analyzes, and
disseminates information about programs for LEP students.
A fifth activity, instructional materials development, is authorized but has never been
funded. Table 3 presents the most current data on support services activities.

CRS-9
Table 3. Bilingual Education Support Services, ESEA Title VII,
Part A, Subpart 2, FY2000
Activity
Funding
Number of grantees
SEA grants
$8,040,716
58
Research
$299,725
4
Academic Excellence
$1,200,000
7
Clearinghouse
$1,500,000
1
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Justification, FY2001 and unpublished data.
n.a. = not available.
Professional Development. ED funds four activities under Subpart 3 to
increase the number, and improve the quality of, bilingual educators. Categories
include:
! Training for All Teachers program — provides for incorporating courses
and curricula on appropriate and effective instructional and assessment
methods relating to LEP students into professional development programs;
! Teachers and Personnel grants — promotes professional development
activities for teachers working in, or planning to work in, educational programs
for LEP students;
! Career Ladder program — assists higher education institutions, in
consortium with LEAs or SEAs, to upgrade the skills of teacher aides and
others working with LEP children who are not certified, or not certified in
bilingual education, and to help recruit and train high school students as
bilingual teachers;
! Graduate Fellowship program — provides assistance at the masters,
doctoral, and post-doctoral levels in field related to bilingual education.
Table 4 presents the most current data on professional development activities.
Table 4. Bilingual Education Professional Development, ESEA
Title VII, Part A, Subpart 3, FY2000
Activity
Funding
Number of grantees
Training for all teachers
$17,964,515
90
Teachers & personnel
$29,815,381
147
Career ladder
$18,760,845
90
Graduate fellowships
$ 4,900,774
34
Source: U.S. Department of Education. Unpublished data.

CRS-10
Funding
Table 5 shows the funding history for the BEA since FY1984. The table
indicates that funding for the BEA has fluctuated over time, particularly during the
early 1980s and mid-1990s. After adjusting for inflation, funding for the BEA has
increased an estimated 44% from FY1984 to FY2001. (Please note that the figures
in Table 5 are in current dollars.)
Table 5. Bilingual Education Act, Authorization, Budget
Request, and Appropriations, Current Dollars, FY1984-FY2001
Authorization
Budget request
Appropriation
1984
139,970,000
92,034,000
135,679,000
1985
176,000,000
135,559,000
139,265,000
1986
such sums
139,265,000
133,284,000
1987
such sums
142,951,000
143,095,000
1988
such sums
143,095,000
146,573,000
1989
200,000,000
156,573,000
151,946,000
1990
such sums
157,113,000
158,530,000
1991
such sums
175,393,000
168,735,000
1992
such sums
171,512,000
195,407,000
1993
such sums
203,645,000
196,283,000
1994
such sums
202,789,000
201,163,000
1995
215,000,000
215,000,000
156,700,000
1996
such sums
200,000,000
128,000,000
1997
such sums
156,700,000
156,650,000
1998
such sums
199,000,000
199,000,000
1999
such sums
232,000,000
224,000,000
2000
such sums
259,000,000
248,000,000
2001
such sums
296,000,000
296,000,000
Source: U.S. Department of Education budget documents.
Note: “Such sums” is such sums as may be necessary. Figures rounded to nearest thousand.
Selected Issues
The 106th Congress considered several proposals for reauthorizing the BEA,
along with the rest of the ESEA. On October 21, 1999, the House passed H.R. 2, the

CRS-11
“Student Results Act,” which would have consolidated the BEA instructional services
grants into a single formula grant program to states when the appropriation for a
given year is $220 million or above; through the formula grants, funds would be
distributed based each state’s share of LEP enrollment. Under the bill, the
requirement that only 25% of funding may be used for special alternative instructional
programs would be eliminated. H.R. 2 would have required states to discontinue
funding to LEAs if the majority of students are not attaining English language fluency
and reaching state standards after 3 years of participation.
S. 2, the “Educational Opportunities Act” would have consolidated BEA
instructional services grants into two, rather than the current four, competitive grant
programs. Under the bill, two-thirds of funds would have been distributed to schools
and one-third distributed to LEAs. As with H.R. 2, S. 2 would also eliminate the
25% funding cap for special alternative programs from instructional services grants.
The full Senate debated S. 2 between May 1 and May 9, 2000, but no further action
occurred.
The 107th Congress has again been considering legislation to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). H.R. 1, the “No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001” was passed by the House on May 23, 2001. S. 1, the “Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act” was reported in the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and is currently under consideration in the
Senate.26 Both bills would establish consolidated formula grant programs for the
education of LEP students and would emphasize increasing LEP students’ English
proficiency as quickly as possible. Both bills also require annual assessments of LEP
students’ English proficiency and testing of LEP students in English after 3 years.
The following discussion highlights selected topics that have recently arisen
regarding bilingual education.
Role of Native Language
The BEA embraces the dual goals of bilingualism and English language
acquisition, and this has generated tension in the program around the role of the
native language in the instruction of LEP children. There are different views about
whether native language development should be an independent objective or simply
a means to achieve English language proficiency. Some critics believe that there is
no place for the native language in American schools on either account, i.e., either for
its own sake or as a means to learn English.
Available research is inconclusive as to the best way to educate LEP children.27
The research points out that there is no superior method for teaching every individual
pupil English; a model may be successful in some circumstances but not others.
Factors such as age and educational background of the student, as well as training of
26At the initiation of Senate debate on S. 1, the Senate accepted SA358, a complete substitute
of S. 1, which is now the base bill being considered.
27For a comprehensive review of research on the education of LEP children, see NRC,
Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children.

CRS-12
staff and quality of material, may influence the effectiveness of any instructional
approach. Utilization of a person’s native language has proven at times to be useful
in the acquisition of English and achievement of academic outcomes. Other
techniques that do not rely upon the native language have also yielded positive results
at times.
The latest research on the subject finds support for using the native language in
the schooling of LEP students. A recent study by the National Research Council
(NRC) on reading difficulties in young children recommended that LEP children be
taught how to read in their native language while acquiring proficiency in spoken
English if appropriate instructional guides, materials, and staff are available locally.28
If LEP children cannot be taught to read in their native language because of a lack of
resources, the NRC study recommends that they not be taught to read until they can
speak proficiently in English.
Length of Time in Program
How long LEP children should remain enrolled in bilingual education programs
has recently been a controversial issue. Estimates of how long it takes to master
English vary and are complicated by different measures of English proficiency,
whether academic performance in mainstream English classes is included, and the
pace of the model examined. The most recent research on the topic, which studied
only “well implemented” programs providing on-grade level academic work in the
native language, found that it typically takes bilingually schooled LEP students from
4 to 7 years to achieve the same on-grade level performance in English reading as
students whose first language is English.29 In contrast, LEP students schooled only
in English typically take from 7 to 10 years to achieve the same on-grade level
performance in English reading as students whose first language is English. The
report acknowledges that there are several factors, such as the quality of instruction,
age and educational background of the student, and home support, that affect the rate
of English acquisition. It should be noted that these findings have come under some
criticism because of the lack of peer review.30
Over the years, the Congress has taken different positions on the amount of time
LEP students should participate in BEA projects. In 1988, Congress added an
enrollment cap to the BEA that limited the length of time a LEP child may enroll in
a BEA project to 3 years, with two 1-year extensions possible if conditions
warranted.31 The Senate committee report accompanying the 1988 amendments
stated: “[T]he Members feel that a fundamental goal of this federal program is
28National Research Council. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.
Washington, 1998.
29National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. School Effectiveness for Language
Minority Students. Washington, 1997.
30See for example, The Bilingual Education Debate. The Harvard Education Letter, v. XIV,
no. 3, May/June 1998.
31P.L. 100-297, § 7021(d)(3)(A)-(C), 102 Stat. 130, 281-82 (1988).

CRS-13
proficiency in English. The Committee hopes that students will be able to accomplish
this goal within three years.”32
In 1994, Congress dropped the enrollment cap from the BEA.33 A panel of
bilingual educators had recommended that the time limit be deleted from the program,
stating: “There is no pedagogical justification for imposing any arbitrary date for
students to exit a Title VII, Part A, bilingual program. To the contrary, language-
minority students should be provided opportunities to continue studying in the native
language after they become proficient in English.”34
For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Congress added language to the annual
appropriations measure for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education stipulating that BEA projects quickly move LEP students into English
language schooling. The appropriation language stated that ED should only support
BEA instructional programs “which ensure that students completely master English
in a timely fashion (a period of 3 to 5 years) while meeting rigorous achievement
standards in the academic content areas.”35
Future Directions
Almost from its creation, the BEA has been a controversial program with
attention traditionally focused on finding and supporting the most appropriate means
to teach LEP children English while ensuring their academic progress. While many
of the issues have remained the same, some new directions in the debate have
emerged. For instance, interest seems to have shifted toward how long LEP children
should participate in special programs designed to meet their educational needs. This
is reflected in the California, and most recently, the Arizona ballot initiative on
bilingual education and some of the new research on bilingual education. As the
ESEA reauthorization discussions continue in the 107th Congress, other issues may
emerge surrounding bilingual education
32S.Rept. 100-222, 100th Congress, 1st Session 80 (1987).
33P.L. 103-382.
34Stanford Working Group. Federal Education Programs for Limited-English-Proficient
Students: A Blueprint for the Second Generation. Washington, 1993.
35P.L. 105-78, 111 Stat. 1467, 1500 (1997).