|
UnzWatch
Unz is referring to an unpublished academic report that "Hispanics who attended a bilingual program appear to earn significantly less" than those who did not (emphasis added). Yet the researcher, Mark Hugo López of the University of Maryland, says Unz's characterization is unwarranted, in view of several "caveats" about the study: "poor sample size, it's not a random sample, and there are problems with the comparison groups" (personal communication, 30 March 1998). "Problems"? That's quite an understatement. The study, conducted by López and Marie T. Mora of New Mexico State University, used survey data collected in 1980 from 10th graders recalling their school experiences up to a decade earlier (High School and Beyond). The earnings comparison involved two groups of Latinos:
For purposes of determining the impact of bilingual education, this is an apples-and-oranges comparison, to say the least. Moreover, the researchers had no data on students' English proficiency on entering school or the type of instruction they received – key variables for drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of bilingual vs. nonbilingual programs. So what conclusions can we draw from all this? According to Dr. Stephen Krashen of the University of Southern California: "The Maryland study only shows that immigrants who were once classified as limited English proficient earn less than those who were never considered limited in English. The results have little to do with bilingual education" (April 15 letter to the Orange County Register). To date López and Mora's research has not been accepted for publication in a professional journal. Nevertheless, it has received considerable attention in the popular media, thanks to those who are not too particular about research protocols – as long as the findings are unfavorable to bilingual education.
|