“Essential to social
emancipation is literacy.”
--Paolo Friere
Any true advocate of equality and the rights of the
individual ought be concerned with the state of public
education for students who have limited English proficiency. Immigrants and the children of immigrants
face a number of obstacles in accessing the kinds of public services that a
free and democratic society supposedly offers.
Debates surrounding immigrants in the
Bilingual education, then, is an issue that carries a great deal of weight not only for educators but for all citizens who are actively concerned about these children. Many critiques of bilingual education focus on the negative obstacles of providing the highest quality of education to children whose learning is hindered by a language barrier. This text is a forum for challenging social hierarchies through reevaluating the power of language. By situating bilingual education within a multicultural and multilingual framework, language can be transformed into a source of empowerment for the historically disempowered.
The greatest oversight that any study of bilingual education can make is a failure to recognize the socioeconomic context in which the education of an immigrant student occurs. These factors are hugely significant and cannot be adequately addressed in this paper. It is in no means an indication of their importance that the following factors can merely be listed and not thoroughly examined. These factors may include: recent arrival in US, intense and sustained poverty, psychological effects of immigration, including post-traumatic stress disorder, limited access to literature in either native language or English, and limited exposure to formal academic instruction or setting (DiCerbo 2000).
In the interest of retaining immigrant children’s knowledge of their primary language and cultural identity, the first bilingual education program began in the mid 1960’s. The original education act of 1968 was designed to remove these language barriers so all students, regardless of native language, could have equal access to public education. Special support in removing language barriers became a mandate following the 1974 Lau. vs. Nichol’s case. Since then, a wide ranging number of programs classified as “bilingual education” have been implemented and federally funded throughout the country.
For immigrants and the children of immigrants, a number of
factors influence access to learning opportunities. Of the limited English proficiency students
who are foreign born, 90% come from non-English speaking countries. Of even greater concern is that more than 75%
attend schools in high-poverty communities.
Dropout rates for specific groups of students, such as Hispanics in
Currently there is no consensus that empirical research supports bilingual education programs as an effective means of providing English instruction. This is due in large part to the fact a huge range of bilingual programs exist, some of which are simultaneously classified as both bilingual by some and immersion by others. Because there is no single model for evaluation, pro- and anti-bilingual advocates often cite research flaws and misnomers as evidence for their position. Thus, debates often revolve around the validity of a select few case studies. Bilingual education has come under severe attack in recent years after numerous accusations that it is an ineffective method of teaching English.
For any individual concerned with bilingual education, the fundamental goal is always English comprehension and literacy for the student. Disagreement occurs not over this objective, but rather how it is best obtained. All positions rest on assumptions about learning processes: the length of time required to learn a language, linguistic and cognitive development as they relate to both oral and written language skills, and the relationship between the primary language and secondary language. However, specific teaching methods are not purely based on pedagogy; program structures are politically shaped by broader language goals and ideologies.
The transitional model of bilingual education, known as TBE, seeks to transition the student as soon as possible into mainstream classrooms, creating a monolingual student. The intermediary phase between instruction in the native language and complete immersion is known as “sheltered” instruction, which preferably lasts only 1 to 3 years. Content instruction occurs primarily in the native language while extra assistance (ESL) supports English acquisition. More content instruction in English is added gradually until English is comprehensible (Freeman 1998)
In contrast, the bilingual maintenance model is designed to support retention and further development of the primary language while simultaneously providing instruction in English development. This model promotes a “language as right” notion of the use of native language in the school. (Freeman 1998). A third and increasingly popular model of bilingual education is the “enrichment” model, known as a two-way or dual immersion type of program. The goal of this “language as resource” program is for language minority students as well as students in the majority language to become bilingual through an even split of instruction in two languages, with classes evenly divided between both groups of learners. Minority/majority language can begin with an even 50/50 split, or start with a 90/10 ratio and gradually move to an evenly divided ratio (Christian 1999). This model best supports the interests of immigrant students because language is no longer a problem but rather a tremendous resource as well as a base for expanding knowledge of a second language.
TBE, the most commonly found method of bilingual instruction in the country, and has been severely criticized across the board as failing to acknowledge the language minority student’s cultural and linguistic identity. These programs have also been cited for dropping students into mainstream classes before they have achieved adequate English proficiency but also failing to continue instruction in the primary language, resulting in a ‘subtractive bilingual’ condition for the learner. Rosalie Porter and other prominent educators argue that special ‘bilingual’ programs don’t meet equal education goals because they segregate students, misplace students, and fail to succeed in providing the same level of language arts instruction to bilingual and mainstream students (Porter 1990).
It is for a very different reason, however, that TBE is rejected by “immersion” advocates. The concern for a number of politicians, parents and researchers alike is that TBE does not succeed in providing English language proficiency for students in a timely and effective fashion. Known as “English Only” advocacy, movements like that behind the California Unz Initiative seek to limit any instruction in the native language to 1 year, following which the student would receive all instruction entirely in English (Ed Week).
The underlying message behind immersion programs is that minority students, immigrants, and students whose primary language is not English ought to abandon the development of oral skills as well as any formal academic language skills in the native language. The process of “Americanization” into an “English-only” society threatens the diversity of cultures, languages, histories, and ethnicities that comprise this country. The pressure to identify as an “American” weakens young people’s connections to their families and other supportive people.
Students fail when they do not feel connected to their school. Learning takes on meaning when something in the class resonates with a student’s own experiences. In my own personal experiences teaching ESL to adult Hmong students, the best classroom responses occurred when our discussions centered around the history and experiences of Hmong refugees. The ability to give learning relevance to the learner is a step towards acknowledging the student as a whole learner, an individual with a multitude of experiences and ideas. In no way have our schools even begun to create a space for working with student’s personal experiences, especially as immigrants and refugees.
Arguments for immersion not only deny the diversity of the
students themselves, but their learning styles and abilities. The idea that programs currently take ‘too
long’ for students to pick up a second language rests on the assumption that
child learners can acquire a second language at a faster pace and with more
ease than adult learners. All students
do not and cannot learn to speak, write, and read at the same rate and in the
same way. It is absurd to put a time
limit on how quickly a student can become proficient in English, especially at
the cost of the student’s sense of self identity and integrity.
The recent trend towards all English
instruction and subsequent restricted use of non-English languages is hugely
concerning given the possible benefits of native language instruction. Many immersion advocates indicate that there
is no research to support the fact that native language instruction is helpful,
but do not provide evidence that it is harmful (August and Hakuta,
1997). The majority of research by
McLaughlin and others "supports the effective role of a student’s native
language in learning in general and learning language arts skills."
(McLaughlin 1992). Learning to think,
speak and write about the world through more than one language heightens the
capacity of the individual to effectively draw analogies and articulate
ideas. Two-way immersion programs
provide an opportunity to learn a second language not just for LEP learners but
for native English speakers as well.
Immersion advocates like Porter are often concerned that students spend years receiving instruction in their native language, only to reach the end of high school without being instructed in English. Learning a language through native speakers increases the amount of “time on task” instruction that learners have within a second language. Two-way bilingual programs offer young children learning a new language a classroom environment with native speakers and lots of opportunities to speak with them (Porter 1990, Ramirez 1992). Two-way immersion programs also allow students to assist one another in the acquisition of a second language. Both groups of students become empowered by accessing a tremendous part of their identity—language—in order to educate their fellow classmates.
Bilingual dual or two-way immersion programs are difficult to evaluate because immersion advocates claim they are examples of successful immersion programs, whereas bilingual advocates argue they are in fact bilingual programs (Gersten, 1985). One case described as supporting immersion over bilingual education is the El Paso Bilingual Immersion Project (1992). Because native language is used as part of the instruction, it makes the most sense to qualify this as a bilingual program (Ramierez 1992). If El Paso can be described as an example of a successful two-way immersion program, then bilingual supporters have provided evidence that a This project and others that utilize native language are more beneficial than all-English programs. It seems like a win-win situation: if learning two languages at the same time is both feasible as well as valuable, why settle for only one?
Labeling bilingual teaching methods and case studies as
immersion misrepresents the significance of the native language in learning a
second language (Rossell and Baker 1997). Programs hailed as ‘immersion success
stories’ following the Unz Initiative fail to mention
that these programs not only use some bilingual methods—that is, through ESL or
out of class native language instruction—but actually work best when the
instructor has a strong grasp of the student’s native language (Krashen 1996). Building off of any and all prior knowledge
the student has cannot occur in an immersion program without additional
language support beyond the mainstream classroom.
In my own limited experiences teaching adult immigrant English learners, I often try to connect words or terms in English with those of the student’s primary language. I allow my students to speak to one another in their native language because this is a helpful way to reinforce the meaning of a new word or idea. The same follows for reading skills: the grammar and structure in the English language is reinforced by drawing comparisons and contrasts to that of the primary language. As a teacher, I also must recognize the individual growth and strengths of each of my students. For some students, reading comprehension comes more easily than speaking. Many students, especially younger ones, rapidly pick up oral skills but struggle with reading and writing. In short, oral skills are not the same as developed language and literacy skills. An immediate rise in California test scores doesn’t hold much significance. To quote one observer: “learning English faster does not equal learning English better.” Standardized testing cannot be the sole indicator of a student’s progress, effort, or personal development; evaluation of language education programs do need to exist, but must reveal an individual learner’s needs and achievements.
Evaluations must also be much more consistent, responsive, and long term. Immersion advocates may indicate that test scores have risen in immersion schools, or that students have been able to acquire oral skills within a short period of time. Despite these observations, most researchers and educators agree that it takes, on average, five to seven years for a student to become proficient enough to learn formal academic language (Thomas W, Collier V 1997). In other words (to excuse the pun), while a student may be somewhat orally proficient, they may not have a solid comprehension of grammatical structure, syntax, or content.
If students can use their primary language as a basis from which to transfer knowledge of language, then it makes sense for instruction to be provided in the student’s native language. A high correlation exists between literacy in the first and second language. (Krashen 1996, Cummins 1992). Reading is a cognitive process that, once learned, can be transferred from one language to the next, regardless of the language base. If a second language is learned best given a strong base in the primary language, then it stands that the literacy of students prior to entrance into public schools should be a positive indicator of expected student leaning.
Natural experiments in learning progress of recent immigrants are cited as further evidence that greater levels of prior education will result in increased success rates. It is reasoned that a strong educational background in the first language will make English more comprehensible. Immigrants become advocates not only for their own learning but for their history, family, and culture. Democracy begins when the student feels confident about themselves, and capable of being an active and responsible citizens.
Literacy and fluency in English is the key to creating a more just and equitable society. It It is crucial that students develop language arts skills in order to become analytical thinkers, and the ability to do so in more than one language can begin in the first grade and continue for several years. Cognitive language skills are often more difficult to master than simple oral skills, and thus take longer to develop (Solomon J, Rhodes N 1995). Without them, higher thinking skills are impossible. It is through literacy that knowledge becomes power.
Whether or not two-way immersion programs are feasible in a
given school district, education services
should be tailored to the student, based on what the student knows and has
demonstrated through individual progress.
Any language program must integrate higher order language arts skills in
order to provide the highest level of education for the student.
When English and second language acquisition is positioned as an either/or question, it is natural for immigrant parents as well as many others to support English instruction. Most studies do show parent, teacher, and administrator support for bilingual education (Shin 1994. It is highly recommended that the teacher use native language instruction while doing so. Teachers should be able to adjust their instruction time to ensure acquisition of language and speaking skills. With a two-way immersion program, teachers can team teach in order for students to receive all of their language instruction in the classroom. In short, “All teachers need to know something about how children learn a second language” (McLaughlin 1992).
In light of the discussion above, it is recommended that the dual-immersion form of bilingual education is an effective means of creating a classroom that is effective and equitable. Because this model is not only an effective means of providing English acquisition for the language minority student, it is a vehicle for student self empowerment and social change. It is particularly ironic that in an increasingly global political economy, policy makers are not interested in creating schools where students can learn to communicate in a language other than English. In a society that is remarkably more complex than the melting pot metaphor would suggest, it is time to reconsider language diversity as an “opportunity,” and not a “problem.” When self identity is more a question of race and ethnicity than simply looking in the mirror and asking ‘who am I?,” we ought to be reinforcing student identity through positive attitudes about the home culture and native language. Giving children support of their home language is not doing them a disservice. It can prevent students from falling behind, reinforces a bond between school and home, promotes student interest and connectedness with school and particularly the instructor.
It is with some degree of idealism and a tremendous degree of urgency that we ought to ask ourselves: how are we all enriched by diversity? How can it improve our ability to teach? Teaching students from a diverse set of backgrounds requires using multiple teaching strategies that not only take cultural diversity into account but also utilize it to create innovative teaching methods. Using language and culture as a resource for education opens up a number of learning opportunities. Some students experience different methods of learning based on their background, or use less analytic-based reasoning and more inductive reasoning to interpret the world. A classroom that can value these differences is a step towards a society that embraces diversity by building on the strengths and contributions of all students.
August D. and Hakuta K. “Improving Schools for Language minority students.” Washington, DC. National Press, 1997.
Christian, Donna. Georgetown U. Roundtable on Language and Linguistics. Georgetown U. Press, Washington, DC. 1999
Cummins, J. 1994. “Primary Language Instruction and the education of language minority students.” LA, California State University. National Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, 1994.
DiCerbo, Patricia. "Lessons
from Research: what is the length of time it takes LEP students to Acquire
English and Succeed in an All-American classroom?" NCBE.
Washington, DC. 2000.
Education Week. “Bilingual Education.” Updated March 22, 2002.
El Paso Independent School District. Bilingual Evaluation, El Paso, Texas. 1997.
Freeman, Rebecca. Bilingual Education and Social Change. 1998.
Gersten, R. “Structured Immersion for language minority students: Results of a longitudal evaluation.” Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7, 180-196. 1985.
Krashen, Stephen D. “Bilingual Education: Arguments for and (Bogus) Arguments Against. Georgetown U. Roundtable on Language and Lingustics. Georgetown U. Press, Washington, DC. 1999.
Krashen, SD. “Under attack: the case against bilingual education.” Culver City, CA: Language Education Association. 1996.
Josefowitz, Nicholas. “Harvard Panel Heatedly Debates Bilingual Education.” Harvard Crimson. Oct. 16, 2001.
McLaughlin, Barry. “Myths and Misconceptions about second
language learning: what every teacher needs to Unlearn.” Educational Practice
Report: 5.University of California, Santa Cruz, 1992.
Porter, Rosalie. Forked
Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education. Basic Books, Inc. New
York. 1990.
Ramirez, JD. Executive
Summary, Bilingual Research Journal, v6, 1-62, 1992.
Rossell and Baker, 1997.
Shin, F. “Attitudes of Korean Parents towards
bilingual education.” BE Outreach Newsletter, Cal State Department of
Education. 1994.
Solomon, J, Rhodes N. “Conceptualizing
Academic Language.” Santa Cruz, CA. National Center for
Research on Cultural Development and Second Language Learning.
Thomas W, Collier V. “School Effectiveness for language minority students.” NCBE Resource Collection Services, Washington, DC. 1997.