|
Cruise Scientific Visual Statistics Studio Visual Statistics Illustrated |
Validity of the attitudes toward bilingual education scale with respect to group discrimination
David J. Krus and Maureen A. Stanley
Arizona State University
Summary.-The Attitudes toward Bilingual Education (ABE) scale was validated with respect to its ability to discriminate between an explicitly defined group of proponents of bilingual education and a "persons- in general" group of subjects. The obtained difference in measured attitudes were discussed within the framework of the societal implications of bilingual education programs.
In contemporary research, bilingual education has consistently been evaluated and debated on the basis of its contribution to the educational and cognitive development of bilingual students. In general, there are two positions that address the educational gains issue. One perspective, expressed by proponents of bilingual education, assumes that bilingual education is necessary because it is easier for persons to communicate in and to learn from an educational system that presents information in their own language. Furthermore, bilingual education preserves the cultural heritage of minority populations. Some of the evidence for this position stressing the advantages of bilingual education comes from studies that support the notions of cognitive gain (Cummins, 1979), the need for different teaching strategies for bilingual children (Knight and Kagan, 1977), and discussions about the benefits of individual educational programs for the bilingual child, such as immersion or submersion programs (Genesee, 1976).
The other perspective, generally espoused by opponents to bilingual education, assumes that bilingual education ultimately hampers rather than promotes educational progress of minority children, adds, additional barriers to the eventual integration of the minority children into the mainstream society and furthers their feelings of insecurity, isolation, and separateness. On the societal level, opponents of bilingual education assert that it promotes centrifugal rather than centripetal societal tendencies and further fragmentation of the society. Issues raised in conjunction with this oppositional category also pertain to selective support of bilingual educational programs by those educators who are likely to derive financial benefits from them. Of additional concern are the political support by pressure groups pursuing primarily ethnic rather than broad societal goals and the issue of opening the educational system to persons who would not otherwise qualify. These problems were recently addressed in the study by Krus and Brazelton (1983). These authors attempted to assess the long-term impact of bilingual education programs by using the transtemporal cognitive matching design and in the course of their study also developed the Attitudes toward Bilingual Education (ABE) scale, which was designed to tap the underlying beliefs of proponents and opponents of bilingual education. The purpose of this study was to present additional evidence for the construct validity of the ABE scale. Specifically, attention was directed to its potential to provide valid discrimination between an a priori defined group of proponents of bilingual education and a group of adult individuals randomly selected from the general population.
Method
The ABE questionnaire was administered to a total of 92 persons. From this subject pool 50 persons were identified as directly involved with the Bilingual and Multicultural educational program at Arizona State University. The remaining 42 subjects who had no relationship to the program were included in the "persons-in-general" group. Both groups consisted of students, faculty, and immediate members of their families; all were of comparable age with approximately equal representation of both sexes. Intergroup differences pertaining to beliefs about bilingual education programs and their ramifications were described in terms of their directions and magnitudes and analyzed with respect to their statistical significance.
Results
Results of the present study are summarized in Table I, which shows the mean differences and their corresponding standard deviations for both groups under scrutiny.
|
|
General |
Bilingual Education Students |
|
||
|
Item Number and Content |
Means |
SD |
Means |
SD |
F |
|
1. The fundamental error
in the conduct of the United States is the blind worship of a single
language, erroneously regarded as the only possible foundation for its
continued existence. |
.25 |
.43 |
.82 |
.39 |
265.78 |
|
2. The money used to
finance bilingual education could be better used to teach children how
to live in the mainstream of society rather than in a ghetto. |
.40 |
.49 |
.18 |
.39 |
29.91 |
|
3. In the Southern parts
of the United States, there are a large number of linguistically mixed
areas and the minority problem is very important. To deal with this
problem, proportional representation of minority groups must be achieved
and an increasing measure of untrammeled self-government must be
introduced. |
|
.50 |
.94 |
.24 |
148.11 |
|
4. Bilingual education
is promoting divisiveness in American society. |
|
.50 |
.18 |
.39 |
85.19 |
|
5. Attempts to create a
bilingual society will promote future discord and separatist tendencies. |
|
.50 |
.02 |
.14 |
397.81 |
|
6. Bilingual ballots do
not promote the understanding of election issues; they are but a thinly
veiled bid for political power. |
.69 |
.47 |
.30 |
.46 |
74.53 |
|
7. Paying for bilingual
education with taxpayers money is wrong. |
|
.47 |
.00 |
.00 |
981.85 |
|
8. The linguistic
diversity in the United States should be maintained. |
|
.48 |
.90 |
.30 |
70.20 |
|
9. The Chicano question
is the question mainly affecting the United States and its settlement,
i.e., assurance of justice and equality of rights of Hispanic people
would have a favorable effect on foreign policy. |
.54 |
|
.88 |
|
|
|
10. To give a person
differential treatment, using his or her ethnic group membership as a
criterion, is racism. |
.37 |
.48 |
|
.48 |
|
|
11. People who do not
acknowledge a basic human right to identify with a primary ethnic group
are racist. |
|
.50 |
|
|
|
|
12. Educators who use
expressions such as ‘Anglo’ and ‘Chicano’ to label some citizens of the
United States betray their insensitivity to structural and linguistic
properties of the English and Spanish languages. |
.80 |
|
.32 |
|
|
|
13. Placement of Hispanic
children in an educational program in which they are taught in the
Spanish language will prevent them from going beyond the twelfth grade
as they will not have the English skills necessary for college. |
.28 |
|
.20 |
.40 |
n.s. |
|
14. Educators who promote
bilingual education also promote their own financial interests. |
.55 |
.50 |
.30 |
.46 |
27.18 |
|
15. In order to maintain
internal peace, the Hispanic people who after the Anglos are the
greatest in regard to numerical strength should be granted those rights
to which they are entitled not only because of their numbers, but also
in a historical respect. |
|
|
.94 |
.24 |
|
|
16. Bilingual education
(a) ultimately helps, (b) ultimately harms Hispanic children. |
.61 |
.49 |
1.00 |
.00 |
290.19 |
|
17. Persons of Hispanic
origin have a valid fear that American society is trying to rob them of
the cultural background. |
|
.48 |
|
|
694.74 |
|
18. Bilingual education
provides minority children with transferable skills which will allow
them to be integrated into the dominant society. |
.57 |
.49 |
.78 |
.42 |
23.85 |
|
19. If we really to have
peace and quiet, minority and proportional representation must be
reaffirmed. |
.78 |
.42 |
.86 |
.35 |
n.s. |
|
20. Bilingual programs
provide teaching positions for persons who could not otherwise make it
in the open academic market. |
.66 |
.47 |
.24 |
.43 |
99.36 |
|
21. Educators should use
language of origin in regular classroom curricula to foster development
of students’ historical, literary and cultural traditions. |
|
.50 |
.84 |
.37 |
88.02 |
|
22. The American melting
pot idea is inimical to the interests of primary ethnic groups and
should be abandoned. |
|
.40 |
.58 |
.50 |
83.59 |
|
23. There is a difference
between ethnicity understood as the preservation of separate ethnic
identity and ethnicity understood as a recognition of the contribution
of ethnic groups to the common American culture. The former is but a new
form of racism; the later is an expression of true humanity and basic
unity of all human beings. |
|
|
|
|
|
I
n Table 1, the results are given as proportions that are easily translated to percentages of each group's acceptance or rejection of the presented issues. Levels of statistical significance of observed outcomes are set forth in the last column. As can be observed, with an exception of two items, the components of the ABE scale discriminated between the two groups at least at the .05 level with the majority of items discriminating at or beyond .001 level. Also of interest are the sheer magnitudes of the observed differences which suggest that the opinions and values of the bilingual education proponents are at gross variance with the opinions and beliefs of the general population.Discussion
Many of the obtained differences are of interest. Aside from expressing support for the bilingual education of children, about 82 percent of proponents of bilingual education also endorsed the statement concerning abandonment of a single language as an accepted means of communication among citizens of the United States (Item 1). In addition about 94 percent gave a response suggesting introduction of self-government for linguistic minorities (Item 3), while asserting that creation of a bilingual society will not promote future discord and separatist tendencies (Item 4). Among the many interesting points of disagreement expressed in subsequent items, perhaps the most striking responses were that bilingual educators unanimously imply that the intent of the mainstream society is to rob minorities of their cultural heritage (Item 17), and that public funds should be used to pay their salaries (Item 7).
The range of observed differences suggests that problems with bilingual education pertain to more issues than to frequently expressed questions surrounding classroom performance of minority children. The magnitude of observed differences indicates that bilingual education programs are potentially divisive and contribute to the loosening of the cohesiveness of the society.
The scale is a valid measure of the intergroup differences with respect to constructs it purportedly measures. The results also have lent further support to the transtemporal cognitive matching methodology used for the construction and development of the ABE scale.
When one considers the seriousness of issues underscored by the ABE scale, it appears that there is merit in assessing attitudes toward bilingual education from the perspective of its expected political and societal impact. Unfortunately, studies with such an emphasis are underrepresented in the literature. It seems warranted to recommend that investigation of this kind routinely complement studies concerned with questions of educational gain, if one hopes to evaluate effectively the multifaceted implications of bilingual education.
References
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251.
Genesee, F. (1976). The suitability of immersion programs for all children. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, 494-515.
Knight, G. P., & Kagan, S. (1977). Development of prosocial and competitive behaviors in Anglo American and Mexican American Children. Child Development, 48, 1385-1394.
Krus, D. J., & Brazelton, J. M. (1983). Perspectives on bilingual education in the Austrian Empire and the United States of America: Is the assumption of temporal catenation of linguistic and territorial separatism valid? Psychological Reports, 53, 247-254.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Albert Gutierrez for his help with the collection of data.