Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SECADA, W. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Research, Politics, and Bilingual Education

WALTER G. SECADA

Bilingual-education research has helped to inform and to shape federal policy and funding as articulated in the Bilingual Education Act, first passed in 1968 as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. During the Act's most recent reauthorization, the U.S. Department of Education and others proposed changing the law to fund more all-English language programs. They argued that the federal government was mandating a single approach, that there was no research evidence to support such a mandate, and that schools should be granted flexibility in designing programs to meet local needs. In fashioning this argument, proponents of change carefully selected the research literature they alluded to. That research was judged against artificially high and overly narrow criteria. Finally, they overinterpreted the research to suit their agenda. Congress was under intense political pressure to fund more all-English programs, and it did so. But a panel of experts contradicted the argument that there was no research to support the use of the native language for instruction. In the end, Congress kept the bulk of the monies devoted to bilingual programs.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 508, No. 1, 81-106 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716290508001008
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHHome page
G. Hu
The Misleading Academic Discourse on Chinese-English Bilingual Education in China
Review of Educational Research, June 1, 2008; 78(2): 195 - 231.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]