Bilingual Education: The Controversy the

Bilingual Education: The Controversy The controversy over the concept and practice of bilingual education is hardly new. Although most people trace the beginnings of the debate to the 1970's Supreme Court finding that non-native English speakers (particularly new immigrants), were not receiving the equal education guaranteed them by the law (CPJ, 1997), the debate has actually long been a part of United States History.

Interestingly, however, most American voters have little knowledge about the long history of bilingual education, and instead somehow imagine that the best and only "logical" way to immerse new immigrant students into the "mainstream" is to immediately place them in an all English setting.

Although this is the view of many, it is particularly telling that large numbers of politicians and political parties jump on the bilingual bandwagon -- either for or against, seemingly pointing to a larger issue of the importance of "assimilation" that has nothing to do with academic success.

Few native English speakers who have attended public schools in the last 30 years or so have not had the experience of passing by the "Spanish classroom," (or Russian, Vietnamese, or any other representation of a local immigrant demographic), while perhaps catching a glimpse of the "goings-on." There, one might see math, social studies, or even personal economics classes being conducted not in English, but in another language.

Of course, the idea behind this practice is that it (in keeping with the 1970's Supreme Court finding), helps to prevent non-English speaking students from falling significantly behind their peers in key subjects other than English while they master the language (Rumbaut, 1995). However, there is also significant controversy concerning this view -- the official line of reasoning seems to be that it delays the learning of English in a way that total immersion would not -- thereby placing the student at a distinct disadvantage overall in an all English society.

Indeed, many against bilingual education argue that the value of English above all other languages presents a de-facto argument that its mastery is of paramount importance -- almost above all other factors. Although many foreign university students clearly demonstrate that their preparation in other subject areas in their native languages prepare them well for a future in higher education, this notion is ignored by the pro-total immersion camp.

Instead, they argue that the place of English as the lingua franca (Farlex, 2004) of the entire world, "due to the military, economic, scientific, political and cultural influence of the United Kingdom and later the United States (Farlex)." As such, the language is essential for success in later life in any higher endeavor or occupation. However, just how the opponents of bilingual education know that total immersion is the "way to go" is unclear. Indeed, as many point out, past experience certainly does little to support this assertion.

As Richard Rothstein, author of the 1998 book, the Way We Were? points out: Immersing immigrants in an English-language school program has been effective -- usually by the third generation. On the whole, immigrant children spoke their native language; members of the second generation (immigrants' native-born children) were bilingual, but not sufficiently fluent in English to excel in school; members of the third generation were fluent in English and began to acquire college educations.

For some groups (e.g., Greek Americans), the pattern more often took four generations; for others (e.g., Eastern European Jews), many in the second generation may have entered college (Rothstein, 1998). Thus, as Rothstein points out, one has to wonder just what the anti-bilingual education camp draws upon when it makes the claim that the abolition of bilingual classrooms will necessarily solve the problem of acquiring high-level functionality in an English-only curriculum setting.

The simple truth is, there is no historical precedent that points out the superiority of all-English immersion programs rather than a bilingual system. In fact, again as pointed out by the Supreme Court finding, the opposite seems to be the case. As Rothstein writes, "...if we've never successfully educated the first or even second generation of children from peasant or unskilled immigrant families, we are dealing with an unprecedented task, and history can't guide us (Rothstein).

if, then one has to wonder...if history is not prompting those against the practice of bilingual education to oppose it, what exactly is? Of course the issue of immigrant assimilation is an underlying component to this issue that cannot be ignored.

As many have experienced, the view of many "mainstream" Americans represented coarsely by the statement, "You're in America now, speak English!" Few who have heard this statement spoken in any real-life situation can fail to notice the faint (or, perhaps more commonly, obvious) tone of anger often accompanying the words -- an anger that perhaps points to more than a mere frustration at the unfortunate immigrant-in-question's poor communication skills.

Instead, what really seems to be the subject at hand is "You're in America now, be American!" Not only does this seem to be the real issue, but it also seems to represent the large majority of anti-bilingualism that is represented by the political "Right," and their representatives.

Take, for example, the following excerpt, taken from an article on the "Intellectual Conservative" website, entitled, "Fast Track Assimilation Could Offer Escape from Poverty": Fluency in English is an obvious first step that alone creates more opportunity than any other element of assimilation, since it not only increases an individual's marketability but makes possible the further acculturation upon which future progress rests.

Immigrants have a long road to travel under the best of circumstances, and bilingual education programs that retard their entry into the English-speaking world serve only those who make their living teaching in such programs (Myers, 2004). Obviously, this viewpoint seems to be based on many assumptions that are hardly proven.

First, of course, one has to wonder if the salaries are so high for ESL teachers, particularly in the nation's public school system that there could really be a temptation to further those programs at the expense of unsuspecting immigrant students and their families. Second, once again, there seems to be a "given" assumption that the bilingual system of education necessarily retards English acquisition -- or that other factors might be involved.

Further, there is a clear and unapologetic leaning toward the necessity of stripping "all things foreign" from this great land that seems to be the real underlying issue. Consider Myers continuation of his argument: Along with the acquisition of English, immigrants need to feel a sense of belonging to a culture and nation bigger than themselves or their pasts. For that reason, American history should be taught from primary schools all the way through the undergraduate level.

And here let us stipulate that this must include the founding and the Founders, the struggles to carve a free land out of both wilderness and foreign empire, and the success of earlier generations of immigrants - be they English or Latinos - in building America into the greatest nation on earth. Bowdlerized texts and politically correct interpretations have no place in this curricula (Myers).

Of course, one has to wonder just what place the Native Americans had in the "carving out" process he refers to -- again, a point that seems to raise the real issue of "otherness" as offensive to mainstream American culture. However, if this is the "real" issue behind the push against bilingual education, some might ask just why so many immigrant rich communities also seem to oppose it. Again, much can be learned from the history of bilingual education in the United States, even on this issue.

Take for example, again, Rothstein's study on the past experiences of the educational system with bilingual education. He writes: Many immigrant children...did not attend school at all if they could not have classes in their native language. In his 1840 address to the New York legislature, Gov.

William Seward (later Lincoln's secretary of state) explained that the importance of attracting immigrants to school -- and of keeping them there -- motivated his advocacy of expanded native-language instruction: "I do not hesitate to recommend the establishment of schools in which [immigrant children] may be instructed by teachers speaking the same language with themselves." Only by so doing, Gov. Seward insisted, could we "qualify.. [them] for the high responsibilities of citizenship."(Rothstein, 1998). Although then Gov.

Seward seemed to think that education (perhaps, more than linguistic uniformity), could help to "qualify them for the high responsibilities of citizenship," there existed a phenomenon, even in his day of immigrant parents and communities, themselves, in opposition to the practice of bilingualism in schools. Take, for example, the findings of a 1843 committee established by the then, Public School Society, charged with determining whether an Italian-language school should be established in New York City.

As Rothstein relates, the Public School Society eventually recommended against the establishment of the school, claiming that "...the Italian community was itself divided," and that, in the words of the committee: Information has been obtained...that the more intelligent class of Italians do not desire such a school, and that, like most [but not, apparently, all] of the better class of Germans, they would prefer that those of their countrymen who come here with good intentions should be Americanized as speedily as possible (Rothstein, 1998).

Perhaps, here, the most telling words seem to be "the more intelligent class," "the better class," and "those of their countrymen who come here with good intentions." Indeed, one has to wonder which groups of immigrants would not wish to be considered as representatives of these words. Certainly, if an avocation against bilingual education will allow them full membership into a class of people who are "intelligent," of "better class," and "with good intentions," it would be tempting to say the least.

The simple truth is, a majority of those who oppose bilingual education are famously right-wing and typically Republican. In fact, under virtually every Republican Administration, issues of bilingual education have consistently been maligned (Ostrom, 1998).

Consider, for example the remarks of 1996 Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole, who asserted that teaching English is meant "to speed the melting of our melting pot," and that "...We must stop the practice of multilingual education as a means of instilling ethnic pride, or as a therapy for low self-esteem, or out of elitist guilt over a culture built on the traditions of the West (Pitsch, 1995)." Quite an interesting statement when one considers the oppositional belief that subjects (including English) are taught in the public schools in order to educate, not as a political or national goal to foster assimilation.

Further, the common undertone of "Americanism" as a primary reason for the acquisition of English (thinly veiled under a supposed interest in immigrant "success" in life), only undermines the fact that good educational theory is almost never a consideration in the debate. In fact, despite several examples of miss-managed bilingual education programs, the theory of bilingualism simply makes sense.

Although many legitimately wonder how a child in a bilingual program will ever learn English, it must be remembered that educational theory supports the notion that a good education in any language helps a student to do well once he or she learns to take courses in a second language. Again, this fact is demonstrated every year in the accomplishments of members of the ranks of foreign students enrolled in United States universities (many of whom begin their U.S.

education with ESL classes upon enrolling at colleges and universities -- thereby demonstrating that years spent in acquiring generalized education in their native language in no way hampers their progress later). The truth is, a child who understands the basic fundamentals of mathematics is better suited to understanding the basics taught in a foreign language than one who has to struggle with those concepts from the beginning in a language that is incomprehensible.

After all, the average college educated adult can attest to the difficulty of learning calculus, for example, in English. One has but to imagine just how much more difficult it would be to learn it in Arabic with no prior knowledge of the language. Another example commonly cited in the debate is that of primary literacy. Many studies have proven that reading ability strongly transfers between languages -- that is the process of reading, letter recognition, scanning, decoding, etc., prepares one to read in another language.

Thus, according to Frank Smith, in his 1994 work, Understanding Reading, it is not only easier to learn to read if one understands the words that are being read (as opposed to incomprehensible words in a foreign language), but once reading has been learned, the ability crosses over into other languages once those languages are acquired. However, of course, the reverse is not true.

That is, if a student struggles to acquire primary literacy due to a fundamental incomprehension of the words on the page (arguably the very conceptual goal of reading -- without which serious delays must be expected), it is unlikely that he or she will do well later with regard to literacy in any language. Unfortunately, politics and public opinion seems to be taking central stage, especially in light of current events in the "No Child Left Behind" program.

Indeed, under the banner of politics and political alliances, the nation has seen the 1970's Supreme Court decision affirming the necessity of bilingual education dealt a fatal blow.

Not only is this unfortunate due to the incredible waste of time and resources given to develop theories and practices in support of the method, but it is also unfortunate because much of the so called "evidence" in opposition to bilingual education is politically driven, highly contrived and biased -- to the detriment of real students in need of quality education, whatever their ethnic or national background.

Even more unsettling is the willingness of political candidates, politicians and parties to "parade out" choice Hispanic parents in particular in support of their views, as if one's mere existence as an "immigrant" necessarily makes one an expert on the issue of the merits of bilingual education.

As Rothstein points out, "Opponents of bilingual education promote Hispanic parents to the media when they claim they want their children to learn English without bilingual support." Further, according to Rothstein, "...the clear implication is that only liberal ideologues and separatists support native-language instruction. These claims...may not reflect the feelings of most parents.

Sadly, although the honest reality of the situation is that most of the issues surrounding successful education of non-native English speakers is extremely complex, many -- especially those with access to immense financial stores and large "chunks" of media coverage, attempt to make the matter appear to be very simple. After all, they say -- "This is America. Be a good American -- Talk American!" Just what this urging really means (as well as the sentiment behind it) is obviously very different from what English-only proponents say it means.

Clearly, according to them, they only want "what's best" for the immigrant child. Yet this hardly seems to be the real goal. The truth is, the United States public school system is hardly an institution whose ultimate goal is the "assimilation" of each student into the dominant cultural society of the nation -- at least as it is represented by the political Right. Instead, most agree that the primary function of the school system is.