National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×

Assessing Evaluation Studies

The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies

Michael M. Meyer and Stephen E. Fienberg, Editors

Panel to Review Evaluation Studies of Bilingual Education

Committee on National Statistics

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1992

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

This project was supported by funds from the U.S. Department of Education.

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 92-64011

International Standard Book Number 0-309-04728-5

Additional Copies of this report are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Consitution Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418

S621

Printed in the United States of America

First Printing, June 1992

Second Printing, November 1992

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×

Panel to Review Evaluation Studies of Bilingual Education

STEPHEN E. FIENBERG (Chair),

Department of Mathematics and Statistics and Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

BARBARA F. FREED,

College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University

KENJI HAKUTA,

School of Education, Stanford University

LYLE V. JONES,

Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina

KATHRYN B. LASKEY,

School of Information Technology and Engineering, George Mason University

LUIS C. MOLL,

School of Education, University of Arizona

P. DAVID PEARSON,

College of Education, University of Illinois

JOHN E. ROLPH,

The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California

PAUL R. ROSENBAUM,

Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

DONALD B. RUBIN,

Department of Statistics, Harvard University

KEITH F. RUST,

Westat, Inc., Rockville, Maryland

BURTON H. SINGER,

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University

HERBERT L SMITH,

Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania

MICHAEL M. MEYER, Study Director (Carnegie Mellon University)

MICHELE L. CONRAD, Senior Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×

Committee on National Statistics 1991–1992

BURTON H. SINGER (Chair),

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University

NORMAN M. BRADBURN,

National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago

MARTIN H. DAVID,

Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin

ANGUS S. DEATON,

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

NOREEN GOLDMAN,

Office of Population Research, Princeton University

LOUIS GORDON,

Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California

JOEL B. GREENHOUSE,

Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University

ROBERT M. HAUSER,

Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin

GRAHAM KALTON,

Westat, Inc., Rockville, Maryland

WILLIAM A. MORRILL,

Mathtech, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey

JANET L. NORWOOD,

The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.

DOROTHY P. RICE,

Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing University of California, San Francisco

JOHN E. ROLPH,

The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California

DONALD B. RUBIN,

Department of Statistics, Harvard University

MIRON L. STRAF, Director

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×

Preface

In October of 1990 the United States Department of Education requested the National Research Council to convene a panel to review two major evaluation studies of bilingual education. The panel was formed in early 1991 and given the following charge:

The Panel to Review Evaluation Studies of Bilingual Education will review and assess the methodology of data collection and analysis of two major studies to evaluate bilingual education programs: a national longitudinal study of the effectiveness of instruction of limited-English-proficient students and a study to compare the effectiveness of three different instructional strategies for bilingual education for such students. The three strategies are immersion (teachers understand Spanish, but respond in English), early exit (students are placed in classes conducted in English as soon as possible), and late exit (both languages are maintained and a proficiency in English is developed over time).

In the first phase of its study, the panel will:

  1. review the methods of data collection and analysis for potential sources of error and assess implications for some of the principal findings;

  2. assess whether additional analyses of the data from either study would strengthen or broaden the findings and, if so, recommend some analyses that could be carried out; and

  3. suggest alternative ways to compare the different instructional strategies and provide advice to the Department of Education Planning and Evaluation Service on commissioning and managing similar evaluation studies in the future.

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×

If, in the panel's assessment, additional data analyses are warranted, and if the Department of Education and the panel agree, the panel would, in the second phase of its study, commission and review the analyses.

The two studies reviewed are The National Longitudinal Study of the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Services for Language-Minority Limited-English-Proficient Students and The Longitudinal Study of Immersion Strategy, Early-exit and Late-exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority Children. Throughout the report the panel has adopted the words Longitudinal Study to describe the first study and Immersion Study to describe the second study. These terms are misleading, but they were the language that the Department of Education adopted in its description of the studies. For the record, the panel notes that both of the studies are longitudinal and that the “immersion” study does not have a real immersion component.

The panel's conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter 6. This is a very short chapter and readers who have a limited amount of time may wish to turn there first.

The panel first met in March of 1991, shortly after the final report for the Immersion Study was made available. Subsequent meetings were held in June and December of 1991. This report is the result of the panel's deliberations.

At the outset we thank the panel for its dedication to this project and its willingness to work in a very short time frame.

Many people made generous contributions to the work of the panel. We thank the many staff members of the U.S. Department of Education who attended our meetings, answered our innumerable questions, and provided mountains of reports, interim reports and background material. In particular, the efforts of James English and David Moguel were invaluable. The contractors for the two studies, Development Associates and Research Triangle Institute for the Longitudinal Study and Aguirre International for the Immersion Study, attended our first meeting, provided us with background materials and responded to many questions. Graham Burkheimer of Research Triangle Institute, Malcolm Young of Development Associates, and David Ramirez of Aguirre International were especially helpful. Wallace Lambert of McGill University shared with the panel his experiences in the Canadian immersion studies; his discussions helped to set the stage for many of our own deliberations.

The Departments of Statistics and of Academic Computing and Media at Carnegie Mellon University provided release time to allow Michael Meyer to direct the study and also provided excellent computing support.

Miron Straf, director of Committee on National Statistics, was always available to answer our questions and to assist us through the operations of the National Research Council.

The Committee on National Statistics provided valuable input into the report, and in particular encouraged us to expand the scope of our comments to the general domain of educational research.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×

Finally, we would like to thank the staff of the Committee on National Statistics, especially our senior project assistant, Michele Conrad. Michele kept the panel informed, organized meetings, provided editorial assistance, suffered our changing schedules, and still managed to keep a cheery disposition. The report would have taken a lot longer to complete without her assistance.

Stephen E. Fienberg, Chair

Michael M. Meyer, Study Director

Panel to Review Evaluation Studies of Bilingual Education

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1992. Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2014.
×
PageR10
Next: 1 Bilingual Education in the United States »
Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Bilingual education has long been the subject of major disagreements in this country. This book provides a detailed critique of the two largest studies of U.S. bilingual education programs. It examines the goals of the studies and what can be learned from them. In addition, using these studies as cases, this book provides guidelines on how to plan large evaluation studies to achieve useful answers to major policy questions about education.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!