Bilingualism: Visualizing the Outcomes for Latinx Students in the United States

In this dissertation, I analyzed the outcomes of bilingualism for the growing Latinx community living in the United States. Outcomes were quantitatively analyzed from four different perspectives: educational outcomes, job market participation, income, and social capital engagement. Chapters 1 and 2 cover previous studies about bilingualism, the importance of including outcomes that are not purely related to income, and general characteristics of the Latinx community. To perform the analyses, I used the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002/2012 (ELS:2002) dataset, a nationally representative dataset administered by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. To determine the population sample, I used coarsened exact matching between the selected sample and the control group. This statistical technique allows for the matching of individuals a priori on an array of characteristics that make analyses stronger and increase internal validity. After the matching, I conducted a series of ordinary least squares regressions, including fixed effects of location using zip codes to account for the location of the individuals. In general, results were significantly positive for bilingual Latinx compared to non-bilingual Latinx in the United States. Thus, it appears that bilingualism is an advantage for Latinx individuals in variables of education, job market participation, and income. However, results were not as precise for social capital engagement activities. Finally, I present a discussion of the results and direction of future studies. BILINGUALISM: VISUALIZING OUTCOMES FOR LATINX STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 3 Chapter 1: Introduction Since the early days of the American colonies, promoting bilingualism through bilingual education has been a perennial issue of controversy, capturing the attention of politicians, policymakers, and parents (Crawford, 2004). Sometimes there have been waves of support of bilingual education as in Florida in the 1960s. Other times there has been strong opposition to bilingual education in public schools as in the late 1990s in places like California, Arizona, and Massachusetts. The support for bilingual programs by policymakers and the community appears to be a function of the political power and level of influence their stakeholders have. For example, in the 1960s, after the Cuban Revolution in 1959, Cuban immigrants who fled their country created a successful bilingual program focused on preserving both languages in Dade County, Florida. The success of this program has been attributed, in part, to the active support of professional Cuban parents and federal assistance through the Cuban Refugee Act (Baker, Basaraba, & Polanco, 2016). Also, during this time, various policies led to the support of bilingual education. For example, the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 led to helping school districts with establishing educational programs for immigrant children who did not speak English (Baker, Basaraba, & Polanco, 2016). Bilingual education was the preferred method of literacy instruction for English learners (ELs) in the 1970s and 1980s (Slavin & Cheung, 2005). However, the 1990s experienced a period of retrenchment on bilingual education, culminating in English only state policies such as Proposition 227 in California 1998, Proposition 203 in Arizona in the year 2000, and Question 2 in Massachusetts in the year 2002. The purpose of these educational initiatives was to focus on English-only literacy and language development. With few exceptions, the general goal of bilingual programs in the U.S. has been to use the native language of students to BILINGUALISM: VISUALIZING OUTCOMES FOR LATINX STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 4 transition them into English. Thus the goal has been for students to become proficient in English, not for students to achieve proficiency in both languages (Polanco & Baker, 2018). Such policies are premised mainly on the monolinguistic argument that students should communicate in English to fully participate and enjoy the benefits of the American economy (Lyons, 1990; August & Shanahan, 2007). Furthermore, some researchers have argued that bilingualism may carry a penalty for individuals in the labor market (Chiswick & Miller, 2007; Shin & Alba, 2009). Critics have increasingly argued against an assimilationist perspective of teaching language, contending that by ignoring the native language of students, the educational system creates a de facto disconnection between the personal and cultural identities of the students (Pease-Alvarez & Hakuta, 1992; Baker, Basaraba, Polanco, 2016). Thus, society fails to capitalize on the cultural and academic values that students already possess that can support academic knowledge and subsequently have an impact on the educational and economic outcomes of the students (Coyne, Kame’enui & Carnine, 2011; García & Kleifgen, 2018). Studies that analyzed the academic results for bilingual students in states that supported Englishonly policies, such as California and Massachusetts, demonstrated that bilingual students did not perform better in English when they attended English-only programs compared to students who attended bilingual programs (Gándara, 2018). Moreover, an emerging body of research has demonstrated that bilingual education yields better academic performance and higher cognitive and language abilities than monolingual education. This effect is particularly strong for students with low socioeconomic status, where the flexibility and processing of bilingual minds can potentially offset the effects of poverty (Calvo & Bialystock, 2013; Prior & Gollan, 2011). Another criticism of a monolingual perspective is based on studies that demonstrate that there are BILINGUALISM: VISUALIZING OUTCOMES FOR LATINX STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 5 important cost benefits associated with bilingualism, where in general, bilingual individuals earned more than monolinguals (Gándara, 2018; Robinson-Cimpián, 2014; Agirdag, 2014a). Given the ongoing policy relevance of the merits of bilingual education as a source of dual language development and not as a tool to develop only English skills, and the debate that surrounds whether bilingualism leads to better educational, economic, and social outcomes, there is a critical need for rigorous empirical research on the impact of bilingualism and bilingual education programs and their impact on students’ success in the educational system and in the labor market (Gándara, 2018; Polanco & Baker, 2016) The purpose of this dissertation is to evaluate the educational, economic, and social outcomes for Latinx bilinguals in the United States after high school compared to Latinx nonbilinguals. Latinx are the largest immigrant group in the United States, and this ethnic group is projected to grow from 59 million in 2018 to 107 million by 2065 (Flores, 2017; Flores, Lopez & Krogstad, 2019). Moreover, Latinx individuals are often bilingual and bicultural, and this duality may have an impact on the outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to understand the impact of bilingualism in this specific population. I will explore the outcomes for bilingual and nonbilingual Latinx in three general areas. First, I look at the educational attainment of Latinx and the likelihood of them achieving a post high-school degree. Second, I look at their labor market outcomes, as defined by participation in the job market and salaries earned in the post-secondary years. Third, I look at the possibility of bilingualism being a tool to engage in social activities in the community. I hypothesize that language is a factor that can lead to higher educational attainment, higher job market participation, and greater involvement in the community. BILINGUALISM: VISUALIZING OUTCOMES FOR LATINX STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 6 Defining Bilingualism Before selecting any individuals for the analysis, the first thing to do is to define who is considered bilingual. Grosjean (2010) proposes that “bilinguals are those who use two or more languages in their everyday lives. ” However, this definition is too broad, and it does not differentiate between bilinguals with advanced language proficiency in both languages, and bilinguals with beginning or intermediate language proficiency in either language or in both. Defining bilingualism is a process that can be complex because one must consider when, where, and with whom an individual uses the languages. Moreover, assessments in the native language, such as language proficiency, comprehension skills, or language abilities, better capture various levels of domain in one language (Baker, 2017). However, this information is not often available in longitudinal datasets. Another consideration is the context in which both languages are used because it helps determine the level of language proficiency. For example, an individual speaking the native language only at home, might not have a more advanced level of language proficiency in the native language compared to an individual who uses the native language in school and at work. Similarly, an individual who speaks a second language with family members at home would use a more colloquial language compared to using the second language in school or in a professional work environment. Moreover, there is a choice component where bilingual individuals use contextual clues to determine which language is more appropriate to use (Baker, 2017; Cummins, 2000). For consistency, in this dissertation, I define bilingualism as an individual who speaks Spanish at home and whose English proficiency is fluent or above as determined by an objective measure of language proficiency assessment in the individuals’ student records. Also, I refer to BILINGUALISM: VISUALIZING OUTCOMES FOR LATINX STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 7 bilingual education as the formal instruction that uses the native language of the student for