Analyzing Journal and Discussion 2

De Jong makes a convincing argument for the employment of diverse discourse by comprehensively scrutinizing and going over the development of multilingualism and linguistic multiplicity. In this chapter, the author discusses both monolingual and bilingual viewpoints. However, the author places emphasis on bilingualism as an international model and the profits of mounting and nurturing bilingualism. The argument made for monolingualism is for having effective communication.

This is based on the perspective that if citizens living in a certain expanse are not able to communicate and speak to each other with the same language, then conflict and fragmentation is bound to come about. However, this is never the case as was perceived in colonial America where different parties speaking different native languages had to come up with effective ways of communication. In fact, I agree with the author that monolingualism does result in coercion and repression (De Jong, 2011).

Multilingualism has several educational, socio-cultural as well as cognitive and political benefits. Taking this into consideration, it is more gainful to make the most of cultural experiences and languages that children have once they commence school. In fact, this has come to be a human right as no individual should be forced to abandon their native dialects. This is because these languages make up who they are inherently, with respect to their uniqueness and who they are as human beings (De Jong, 2011).

I completely agree with the arguments made by the author. This is owing to the fact that in the contemporary setting, where only ideologies that are English are prevalent and dominant, it is apparent to see the significance of having an education that is bilingual. Bilingualism will not only benefit an individual, but will also be of great benefit for businesses and nations as a whole.

Samway and McKeon (2007), provide an intelligible guide to important issue regarding the education of students coming from households in which another language apart from English is spoken. The authors provide rational and clear arguments against the prevalent myths that proliferates this aspect of education as well as the present legal necessities for teaching English-language learners. In particular, an enlightening fact that is barely known is that schools and educational facilities are in actual fact proscribed from requesting for documentation that indicates the legal status of a student.

This is an actuality for several public schools, which can constantly ask for documentation. The same case applies to the false perspective that schools are not permitted to provide education to students who are not legal citizens. As the authors bring into light, all schools are mandated to offer equitable education to immigrants in the same way they offer education to American students.

The authors provide a simple context of legal and permissible accountabilities that ought to be followed when taking into account students who are not English speakers in public schools. A clear and contemporary interpretation of every so often contradictory mandates is conceivably the chapter's supreme achievement. In the actual world, even experienced ESL and bilingual teachers and administrators are regularly indeterminate and tentative.