| A standard view
of American education is that it was instrumental
in defining the immigrant experience, assimilating
immigrants and especially their children into
the great melting pot of American culture (Cremin,
1962). But from the very beginning, immigration
also shaped America's schools (Bowles & Gintis,
1975; Tyack, 1974). Major school reforms in the
19th and early 20th century, for example, were
in part responses to the influx of new immigrant
groups and their increased control over schools.
With dramatic numbers of new immigrants in recent
years, schools are again the object of intense
conflict. As in the past, the language of instruction
is part of the discourse, and political power
over immigrants' schooling is the essence of the
language issue. Bilingual education is a metaphor
for who gets to teach and how immigrant children
get to learn. In the past, those who favored bilingual
instruction won a series of ideological and legislative
victories at the national and state levels. The
groups pushing for this legislation were by and
large educational leaders from minority language
groups.
The composition of the student body in many American
school districts has changed radically in the
past 20 years. The 1990 census reports that 6.3
million school-age children in the United States,
or 14% of the population under 18, do not speak
English at home (Center for the Study of Social
Policy, 1993). In addition, language minority
students at the middle and high school grade levels
have become increasingly identified as being at
risk of academic failure or of dropping out of
school (CCSSO, 1993). Although this situation
is hardly new to educators and policy makers at
the federal, state, and local levels, schools
in many states are currently facing considerable
and increasing pressure to devise more effective
means of educating a culturally and linguistically
diverse student body. The issue of language is
fundamental in the debate over educating America's
growing population of Limited English Proficient
(LEP) children. Shaped by concerns that range
from the personal stakes of parents and their
children to the political interests of politicians
and policy makers and to the professional preferences
of teachers and administrators, defining the role
of native languages in the classroom has always
been problematic. Disputes over theory, research,
and practice have led to the polarization of predominant
ideology concerning not only the most effective
programs for educating language minority students
in America's schools, but also the very goals
of such programs. Bilingual education as a pedagogical
approach to schooling LEP students is at the very
heart of this debate, and a wide body of literature
both supports and contests its merits (Crawford,
1991, 1992; Cummins, 1976, 1977; Hakuta, 1986;
Lessow-Hurley, 1990).
Educators and linguists generally agree that bilingual
education in its "transition" form is
the most effective strategy for promoting higher
academic performance and English acquisition among
LEP students (Hakuta, 1986). By the establishment
of federal funding for innovative bilingual programs
through the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act)
of 1968, the federal government weighed in on
the side of academicians and the political groups
supporting bilingual education by designating
funds to make bilingual programs more available
to LEP students. But in practice, programs for
LEP students do not necessarily reflect the research
findings of the academic community, or the intention
of the legislation. The term "bilingual education"
has been used to refer to many different types
of pedagogical practices, ranging from virtually
no instruction in the native language to programs
in which fully developed bilingual proficiency
in English and the native language is attained
through the structured use of both languages in
the classroom.
A bilingual tradition characterized public and
private schooling, American religious life, and
even the press throughout most of the nineteenth
century. It was not until the turn of the century
that "legal, social, and political forces
opposed languages other than English" (Heath,
1977, p. 24), associated mainly with the backlash
against immigrant groups and the growing concern
that linguistic diversity would threaten national
unity (Heath, 1977). The result was national adherence
to a monolingual English tradition, upheld in
the national interest. The fact that bilingual
education is often perceived as an effort to maintain
ethnic cultures and traditions makes it a direct
target for attack by Americans who believe in
upholding the status of English through the cultural
and linguistic assimilation of all immigrant groups
(Hakuta, 1986).
Funding
A distinct shift in language politics occurred
in the 1960s. The federal government took on a
new, active role in the education of English learners
in 1968, when Congress voted to allocate special
funding to bilingual education programs through
Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act, in order
to promote "new and imaginative" educational
programs that would teach students in their native
languages while they developed proficiency in
English (Crawford, 1991). The signing of Title
VII into law provided federal funds for innovative
programs serving English language learners, but
schools and districts were under no obligation
to apply for or use these federal funds. The Act
and its amendments were designed to supplement
state and local funding toward programs for educating
linguistic minority students, yet did not require
such programs or specify which instructional approaches,
curricular materials, or pedagogical strategies
to use. Title VII funds were commonly used for
small pilot projects, employing a range of pedagogical
approaches and demonstrating considerable variation
in the amount of English and/or home language
use (Stewner-Manzan, 1988). Vast differences emerged
among program approaches, even among those considered
as similar (August & Garcia, 1988). It was
not until the Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court ruling
of 1974 that school systems were legally obligated
to meet the needs of English language learners.
Through this ruling, local Boards of Education
were ordered to address the needs of English learners,
although, again, no specific remedies were mandated
(Hakuta 1986).
Yet, even these judicial interpretations did not
sufficiently clarify the Bilingual Education Act's
poorly defined goals (Crawford, 1991; Hakuta,
1986). Such lack of clarity and the pedagogical
flexibility it allows are reflected in the diversity
of approaches used by school districts to address
the needs of language minority children and the
considerable controversy over which methods are
more beneficial.
In addition to the federal and judiciary influences
on bilingual programs, state legislatures have
also adopted policies and distributed funds earmarked
for English learning students. For example, in
California, funds for Limited English Proficient
(LEP) students are distributed from the state
to the districts, which then provide those funds
to the schools. Students identified by the districts
as speaking a language other than English at home
are tested by the districts and designated NEP
(Non-English Proficient), LEP (Limited English
Proficient) and FEP (Fluent English Proficient).
Students designated LEP and NEP generates state
funds for the schools' bilingual budgets.
Staffing
The issue of district-wide capacity for
the implementation of bilingual education programs
was clearly part of the bilingual education discussion.
Bilingual coordinators felt the need to staff
their schools with teachers who were both bilingual
in the appropriate language and credentialed.
Various attempts were made to staff the schools
with "qualified" teachers (those with
a BCLAD, or bilingual certificate of language
development), and all attempts confronted two
principal problems: first, there is a real (not
merely perceived) shortage of certified bilingual
teachers and the shortage allowed district administrations
that were not committed to bilingual education
to avoid developing full-fledged (primary language
provision) bilingual programs; and, second, attempts
to staff schools with bilingual teachers were
resisted on some level by district administrators,
principals, current teachers, and the school board.
United States schools are caught in a bind. On
the one hand, the United States requirements for
teacher credentialing are quite strict and often
require additional training and course work in
addition to credentials earned in other countries
or other states. Furthermore, the credentialing
programs entail taking standardized competence
tests and extensive course work in teacher education.
Relative to the need for bilingual teachers, few
bilingual, bicultural university graduates decide
to choose teaching as a profession.
Schools and districts therefore try to recruit
teachers with the appropriate language background
and then encourage them to get credentials, or,
alternatively, they follow the much easier route
of staffing their LEP classes with monolingual
English teachers who have obtained cross-cultural
language development certificates (CLAD) and add
instructional aides (certificated staff) with
primary language capability. This latter approach
satisfies state requirements but falls far short
of adequate "transition" bilingual education,
where students are provided instruction in their
primary language and transitioned to English by
a certified bilingual teacher. Certified teacher
recruitment thus has an enormous impact on defining
the nature of bilingual education in the district.
The more BCLAD teachers and BCLAD teachers-in-training,
the more bilingual education is based on primary
language provision with transition to English.
The fewer the certified bilingual teachers, the
more bilingual education are defined as English
as a second language instruction with possible
assistance from primary language-speaking aides.
Community and Parental Support
The relationship between bilingual education and
community participation in education has often
been a close and reciprocal in. In some areas,
local participation in education led to consideration
of bilingual education as a possible remedy for
educational problems. (Fantini, Gittell, Magat;
1970) In other areas, federally mandated bilingual
programs made local participation in the running
of the schools a reality, and more than one community
organized itself around the issue of bilingual
education. (Collier, 1980) However, overall, the
reluctance of parents to interfere with the perceived
task of educators, combined with the even greater
reluctance of schools to have their authority
threatened, has resulted in community participation
of a limited and uneven nature.
Without exception, all of the parents consulted
in schools were greatly concerned about their
children and anxious to help them succeed. Because
of cultural traditions, the responsibility for
educating children and dealing with schools fell
primarily to the mothers. However, more and more
of the women were entering the work force, and
school related tasks were increasing being carried
out by other relatives and even fathers, or put
aside completely. The majorities of the bilingual
program parents were very supportive of bilingual
education and said that they wanted their children
to be adept in both languages in order to get
ahead. Each year more of the parents were able
to describe with some degree of accuracy the program's
goals and practices; however, relatively few of
them came to school other than to pick up their
children or check on them on lunchtime. (Pousada,
1984)
The numerous reasons offered by the nonparticipating
mother included: too many responsibilities no
time, too many children, physical illness, etc.
However, the most telling reasons were that they
honestly did not think they had anything to offer
the school and if they did, they did not really
think they had anything to offer the school and
if they did, they did not really think it would
change anything.
Although there were formal structures in place
for involving the community in bilingual education,
these were not viewed as critical to school or
program functioning by either administrators,
or parents. A small core of regulars (generally
nonworking mothers of lower grade children) showed
up for meetings and carved out a social niche
for themselves in the school. They did not, however,
represent the totality of parents, nor were there
well-organized efforts to unify parents behind
common goals and needs.
Since administrators did not take the community's
role in school affairs seriously they did not
assist parents in school-community dialogues.
As a result, school administrators were constantly
partners in school-community dialogues. As a result,
school administrators were constantly trying to
initiate activities and then despairing about
lack of interest or follow-up on the part of parents.
(Andersson, 1975)
In general, bilingual program parents became
better informed about bilingual education as their
children progressed through the grades. However,
given their low attendance at meetings, it appears
that word of mouth and life experience had more
to do with this than occasional workshops. Parent
association members who did not have children
in bilingual classes still had many misconceptions
about bilingual education, although should have
the right to learn in Spanish and English if they
needed or wanted to.
Assessment or Performance
A number of scholars have described the waxing
and waning of support for bilingual education
in the United States since the inception of the
nation as it stands (Cazden & Snow, 1990;
Crawford, 1999; Wiley, 2002). As these same scholars
have noted, this ebb and flow has mirrored the
economic and sociopolitical conditions of the
country, and how immigration policies have played
out under these circumstances. Ricento (1996)
notes that during the peak decades of immigration
in the United States, ‘laws and initiatives
were passed restricting the linguistic, and in
some cases, civil rights of non-English speakers’
(1996: 4). In fact, as Hornberger (1990) states,
‘there can be little doubt that the language-as-problem
orientation has been the predominant one in the
United States’ public sphere’ (1990:
24). Recently, the discourse surrounding bilingual
education has been even more politically charged,
especially if one considers the dismantling of
bilingual education in California, Arizona and
Massachussetts as well as the growing number of
English-Only movements throughout the country
(17 states have passed English only).
|