The Entry and Exit Fallacy in Bilingual Education

Abstract

It is argued that the relatively minor impact of research on policy decisions in bilingual education stems primarily not from the lack of research data nor from the sociopolitical ramifications of bilingual education, but from the invalid theoretical assumptions with which the research findings have been approached. In particular, there has been a failure to adequately conceptualize the construct of language proficiency and its cross-lingual dimensions. Two theoretical positions on these issues are elaborated: 1. Cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP) becomes differentiated and can be empirically distinguished from basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) in both L1 and L2; 2. L1 and L2 CALP are interdependent – i.e. manifestations of the same underlying dimension. The implications of these positions for bilingual education in the United States are described in relation to current assumptions regarding entry and exit criteria. The “entry fallacy” consists of the assumption that a consideration of superficial linguistic factors is adequate to determine whether or not a particular student, or subgroup of students, requires bilingual education. The “exit fallacy” consists of the assumptions that mainstreaming minority children out of a bilingual program into an English-only program will promote the development of English literacy skills more effectively than if children were maintained in a bilingual program.