Monday, September 28, 1998
Bilingual
education enables every child to become English proficient
BILINGUAL: Politicians ignore cultural, social applications of
studying both English, Spanish
They say ignorance is bliss. Many inaccurate statements,
shrouded in the forgiving cloak of ignorance, have been made about
bilingual education.
Ever since I became interested in bilingual education, people
have asked – either directly or indirectly – why a white,
monolingual New Jersey native would be interested in bilingual
education.
My particular interests were cultivated at a very young age. My
mother and her family emigrated from Chile when she was 3 years
old. She spoke both Spanish and English until she turned 5. Then,
due to the taunting of peers, she closed the door to her
bilingualism and refused to speak another word of Spanish at home.
In asserting herself, she became a victim of the same English-only
message being sent to today’s limited-English proficient youth.
After listening to my relatives’ stories and to the rolled R’s
and tildes of my grandmother and great aunt, I became intrigued by
their mysterious language. There was no question for me when I
chose to study Spanish in middle school. This language was
exciting, alive and the key to my past and present relatives.
Living with my Chilean cousin furthered my interest in the
language, and the cultural sensitivity I developed was
irreplaceable. Perhaps this triggered my role in high school as a
Spanish language tutor and vice president of the American Field
Service the next year. I befriended exchange students from Turkey,
Mexico and Spain.
With blind optimism, I began college as an aspiring educator. I
approached the classroom as a teacher for the first time during my
junior year. To my dismay, the environment was not ideal. I was
greeted by an angry, ill-prepared teacher who allowed chaos to
reign in her classroom. An injustice occurred on multiple levels –
the students weren’t learning, the teacher felt incapable and the
school remained unaware of what was going on.
During that year, my work showed me the priorities of the
district; its limited funding for these low-income communities went
toward minimizing the effects of the over-crowded schools through
construction.
Continued professional development, ongoing technical assistance
and quality content training were simply ideas that I had read
about in a textbook. They were certainly not inherent in this
school system.
Also during this year, I continued my study of linguistics,
English and took the occasional Spanish culture and language
course. Through these fascinating classes, I maintained my interest
in social and political issues.
Continued study and work with students reinforced my
understanding that illiteracy was the reason for failure in
education. In my classrooms of native English speakers, success
always led back to language mastery and literacy.
Yet, having an interest in the equitable education of all
students, I was acutely aware of language-minority populations in
education. Opting for a different kind of spring break, I took an
opportunity to be a teaching assistant in an inner-city Los Angeles
school.
The experience focused my educational prospects in a profound
way. Three out of 35 students were bilingual, and most of the
students communicated in broken English. The inner city, the
poverty, the problems and the languages were all considered
barriers for these children. Yet, the teachers at this school were
making them the "empowered bilingual" in spite of adversity.
The summer of 1998 turned out to be very influential, as well. I
applied for a position in the Office of Bilingual Education and
Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) at the United States Department
of Education, not anticipating the myriad issues facing OBEMLA.
Some were because of the re-authorization of the Improving
America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA).
The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII, required severe
attention and clarification. Many English-only proponents attacked
the law, suggesting drastic revisions. Some even wished for its
abolition.
My OBEMLA experience is best described as eclectic. Although
based as a research consultant for this office, I also attended the
Washington, D.C., IASA Reauthorization Forums hosted by the
department. At these forums, eminent scholars, policy makers,
social servants and education administrators, as well as parents
and teachers, voiced concerns, solutions and policy
shortcomings.
Thus began my first glance at the federal, state and local
levels of education working together to find solutions to the
problems facing the most disadvantaged students. I summarized,
read, noted and then read some more.
Idealism seeped into and out of my work.
Although I have left OBEMLA with more profound questions and
less immediate solutions than I had anticipated, I carry with me a
breadth of applicable knowledge. I understand the research
findings, the myths and the controversies surrounding bilingual
education in our nation.
It is clear that bilingual education is not a simple method of
instruction. It is a complex, multi-leveled, long-existent
methodology that will continue to undergo improvements.
Alice Callaghan, an ardent proponent of Proposition 227, has
repeatedly touted monolingual instruction, saying that
native-language instruction doesn’t work. She believes that "you
can’t learn to read and write English by studying Spanish. It
doesn’t make sense."
However, in 1997, the National Research Counsel concluded that
"there are no negative consequences of learning two languages in
childhood and that there are some positive correlations between
bilingualism and general cognitive ability."
Often accompanying ignorant statements is a basic distrust for
educators.
Decisions are no longer made by educators but by politicians.
According to Ron Unz, English for the Children – otherwise known as
Proposition 227 – is the only answer. Unz doesn’t believe
"education theory as being scientifically respectable." With
Proposition 227, the plug was pulled on all of California’s
bilingual programs, regardless of their effectiveness.
A lack of factual information continues to "inform" our
society.
Assuming that all students should be taught only in English in
order to learn English is not sound. Studies, longitudinal research
and a wealth of examples prove this idea ineffective. For instance,
research proves it takes four to seven years to master academic
English.
The issues surrounding bilingual education revolve around
language discrimination, social welfare, immigration and education
reform. To sit back and accept the passage of laws which are
socially or educationally wrong would be unacceptable.
It is time for one of the most influential populaces in the
nation, our university students, to take action. This action could
be as simple as a statement of concern or as complex as organized
lobbying.
What began for me as a personal goal has assumed more ambitious
public concerns. With a master’s degree in teaching English as a
second language, I will apply my passion for language and
literature working toward the common goal of English proficiency
and social and educational equity.
My goals include teaching and administrating in a district in
which the bilingual education programs are sound, well-practiced
and implemented. I will continue research into effectiveness and
fundamental problems plaguing teacher-training institutions.
As an advocate for bilingual education, I hope to drive policy
that reflects equitable practice rather than inflicting a legal
equity that will simply flaunt itself on the paper on which it is
written. Through these aspirations, I have no doubt that advances
for the future of education and policy await. And, indeed, that is
what I’d call bliss.
Horning is a fourth-year English and education student at the
College of William and Mary. She held a position as a research
consultant for the U.S. Department of Education this summer.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]