The upshot of this controversy was a federal retreat in the 1980s from leadership in setting educational policy for NEP and LEP students. Concomitantly, federal funding for the programs dropped significantly. Meanwhile, states that received substantial numbers of immigrants faced a burgeoning population of nep and lep students in their public schools. At the same time, state and local agencies faced an array of other fiscal demands due to the need to integrate newcomers into their communities. Yet, the federal government offered little financial aid, despite the disparate demands on high immigrant-receiving states.
Innovation is unlikely to take place in conditions of scarcity.
Instead, schools are apt to engage in triage simply to meet the most pressing student needs. The resulting sense of crisis and failure has led to high-profile controversy in California, a state that is particularly vulnerable to polarizing politics because of the legacy of populist influence. Fragmented government authority, weak political parties, and popular referenda, recalls, and initiatives all make for policy instability, even in areas less freighted with fears of racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic difference than bilingual education. Much of the debate on bilingual education depends upon the goals. If one assumes that the sole purpose is to have children learn English as fast as possible while not falling behind in academic work, then one can measure its success one way.