Sample Essay: Bilingual Education In The United States, Highlighting California.

Bilinguals use different languages depending on the setting and the addressee. Children often use the heritage language with older relatives whereas they use English with contemporaries. Church services may be in the heritage language, but Sunday school is often conducted in English because the younger generation is typically not fluent enough in the heritage language.

Limited use of a language is particularly harmful for the development of those heritage languages that are highly contextual. Development of the nuances of these languages depends on opportunity to use them in different contexts.

Bilinguals, when communicating with other bilinguals, frequently alternate languages. Such code switching is more common in oral than in written language. A number of linguistic constraints determine when and how the switch occurs (Romaine, 1995). The syntax, morphology, and lexicon of the languages play a role on possible switches. Code switching occurs at the discourse, sentence, or word level in the communication between bilinguals. A person may be talking to somebody in one language but switch to a different one when switching topics or when a different person joins the conversation. Bilingual mothers and teachers often employ code switching to call children’s attention.

Basically, Children from linguistically and culturally diverse environments share learning, communication, and motivational styles that are at discrepancy with those of the mainstream culture. Language and culture of children emerge to play a significant role in the ways children communicate with and relay to others and in their methods of perceiving, thinking, and problem solving. Individual differences in cognitive functioning are due not to distinctions in intelligence, but, rather, to personality appearances inherent in the sociocultural system.

Oral and written language development of bilingual learners is affected in many ways by their linguistic context. The sociolinguistic categories of languages influence the way languages are regarded in our society and the relative status they hold in comparison to English. It is not surprising that Standard English predominates in schools and other situations, given its status as world, national, and official language.

The type of languages students speak and the type of writing system used by the languages will influence the ease of acquisition of English. The greater the difference, the more likely that families and school will neglect the development of the heritage language. Often these students develop limited oral language skills in their heritage language whereas they become fluent and monoliterate in English.

The function and amount of use of a language influence proficiency of specific languages and language skills. Our society offers opportunities to use English in a wide variety of contexts. Inherit languages are mostly relegated to use at home or ethnic neighborhoods. When the language is used only in casual conversations, the student will develop the informal oral register of the language. Practice of the written language in academic settings is needed to develop the language for successful schooling.

Opportunity to use languages stimulates motivation to learn and to practice them. Intensive exposure to English helps develop English proficiency among students who are native speakers of other languages. As the heritage language erodes due to its limited use, speakers become less motivated to search for such opportunities and their families, school, and churches accommodate increasing use of English and contribute to the loss of the heritage language. Persistent language loss among young members of an ethnic group results in language shift for the whole community. Other social, cultural, political, and economic variables contribute to the maintenance or erosion of heritage language use within an ethnic community.

Families and educators realize that if they want their children to achieve bilingualism, they must provide opportunities for use of the two languages in both oral and written form. Students need plenty of exposure to social English through activities that integrate bilingual students with native speakers of American English. A demanding curriculum that explicitly teaches English academic skills is a precondition to success in the educational system (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). Exposure to the heritage language through the Internet, connections with students in other countries, and as a medium of instruction in schools helps develop these languages beyond the familiar uses.

Families do not always have access to written material in the heritage language. Their children develop oral skills but do not acquire literacy unless the schools have bilingual programs or they attend special weekend schools for the promotion of ethnic languages. In some cases the language is not written. Thus, although students may be bilingual, they are not necessarily biliterate.

Fundamental to the lack of communication in discourse on bilingual education are diverse perceptions of bilingual education. Bilingual education broadly defined is any “educational program that entails the use of two languages of instruction at several points in a student’s school career” ( Nieto, 1992, p. 156). This simple definition is not what most people have in mind while they think of bilingual education.

Various proponents describe bilingual education as “dual language programs” that “consist of instruction in two languages equally distributed across the school day” (Casanova & Arias, 1993, p. 17).

Schooling usually defined as bilingual education really comprises a variety of approaches. Several programs have as goal bilingualism, whereas others ask for development of proficiency in English only. Programs are intended to serve different types of students: English speakers, international sojourners, or language minority students. Some models assimilate these students. Models differ in how much and for how numerous years they use each language for instruction. The preliminary language of literacy and content instruction differs across models.

Several use mostly the native language originally, others deliver instruction in both, and still others begin instruction in the second language, adding up the home language subsequent to a few years. There are special programs for language minority students in which all the teaching is done in English with a second language approach. The difference between bilingual education and English-only instruction models is significant. Bilingual education presumes use of English and another language for instruction. Submersion, structured captivation, and ESL models work with bilingual learners but are not bilingual because they rely on simply one language English for instruction.

“Programs that do not provide significant amounts of instruction in the non-English language should not, in fact, be included under the rubric of bilingual education” (Milk, 1993, p. 102).

As Ofelia Garcia’s statement with reference to bilingual children’s underachievement in education: ‘The greatest failure of contemporary education has been precisely its inability to help teachers understand the ethnolinguistic complexity of children …… in such a way as to enable them to make informed decisions about language and culture in the classroom.’ (Cited in Baker, 1996).

The present California Curriculum stands closer to realizing equity, defined as providing equal access to educational resources, than at any time in its history. But now calls are being made for improving the equality of educational outcomes for students across all income and ethnic groups, and California remains far short of reaching that ideal. While past concern about equality has sometimes meant lowering academic expectations for all, under Superintendent Honig, California’s strategy for moving toward this newer goal emphasizes higher standards for all students regardless of race and socioeconomic background, combined with compensatory financing for certain “impacted” districts and for bilingual education.

In California, language is politics. In the Lau vs. Nichols case of 1974, the California Supreme Court ruled that a student in San Francisco who spoke Chinese and knew no English had a right to attend a public school where his language deficiency would be addressed. Following that decision, California has made a substantial effort to develop, staff, and fund programs for the non-English speaking and the limited-English speaking students of the state (McCollum, 1993).

Since the outset of this effort, controversy has persisted over the appropriate goals of bilingual education. The view that is probably dominant argues that bilingual education should serve as a bridge between the child’s first language and developing fluency in English. A second view maintains that the child should be taught to become fluent in both his or her first language and English; a variation of this view recommends that native speakers of English be mixed in so they, too, will experience the advantages of knowing two languages. A third view, espoused most often by some Hispanic leaders, advocates that bilingual education should be part of bicultural education. Children should develop fluency in English and Spanish, and they should also be socialized into the Mexican-American subculture as well as the dominant American culture.

It is this third view that has created the most tension. Like most immigrant groups, many Mexican-Americans want to maintain their language and their cultural ties with Mexico. Bicultural education is seen by them as a way of preserving their dual heritage. Not all Mexican-Americans agree with this approach, however; some surveys suggest that many Hispanic parents want their children to focus on learning English in school, not Spanish. Hispanic leaders who support the bicultural approach continue to press the legislature to support bicultural education.

Some non-Hispanics see danger in the call for bicultural education. Their concern probably reflects a traditional value that immigrants to America should embrace its language and its culture. Some people also worry that California will become like Quebec, where differences in language and culture produce deep political divisions. Signs of concern about the growing importance of Spanish are evident. In November 1984 California voters approved a proposition to prohibit a bilingual ballot, and a bill has been introduced into the legislature to make English the official language of the state. In this kind of charged atmosphere, the role of Spanish in the schools takes on important symbolic political meaning. Views on language reflect cultural ideology (Secada  & Lightfoot, 1993).

It would be easier to resolve some of the controversy surrounding bilingual education if we knew more than we do about effective strategies for teaching English. Perhaps the sink or swim method used on past generations of immigrants works best; certainly, within a generation or two this method produced satisfactory results. But unlike previous waves of immigration, where a new ethnic group arrived over a fairly short time period and was eventually assimilated into the population, a new first generation of non-English speakers from Mexico is always present in California, and their large numbers combined with their geographic closeness to Mexico make it possible for many Hispanics to avoid becoming fluent in English. These facts may argue for a bilingual approach, at least in the case of Spanish.

One practical problem California faces is that 84 percent of the state’s teachers are Anglo and only 16 percent come from ethnic groups. Moreover, the state cannot begin to find sufficient numbers of teachers for its existing bilingual programs, either in Spanish or in the several other languages presently found in California. But even if California could staff classrooms to meet its current commitments under the law, the problem of language would remain serious. Many children whose English is not limited enough to make them suitable for currently established bilingual programs nonetheless still suffer from staid deficiencies in English.

California needs to identify all of these children and proffer them rigorous and sustained compensatory training. It is expected that many poor and disadvantaged children from all ethnic groups would profit from such an effort. The best time to start is when they are young. A large part of the poor academic performance and much of the attrition of poor and minority students stem from their shortcomings in English. The youngest students can endure elementary school with deficiencies in English, but by junior high school and surely by high school, they get into academic difficulty. By then it is virtually too late to assist many of them. An additional serious problem arises while older immigrant students who speak no English enter school and, because of their age, are placed in junior high school or high school. If they are assigned to English as a Second Language programs, their academic courses can be given at such a remedial level that by the time they become proficient in English they will have fallen behind other students.

California appears to be losing ground in its efforts to deal with problems associated with language, mainly Spanish. One suspects that some of the reluctance of the legislature to develop the scope of bilingual programs derives not only from the cost and the formidable practical problems presented by bilingual education, but also from the fact that language is tied up with the politics of bicultural education. The price that Hispanic activists will have to pay for an all-out attack on the language problem can include forsaking their bicultural agenda.

Moderately, the absence of a learned pedagogical perspective from ‘official’, centralized educational discourses has been reflected in a consequent absence at the local level. In the quarter of continuing professional development for teachers, for case, there is a still a propensity for the prime focus to be on teaching materials for bilingual students, while in books and published research there remains an importance on de-contextualized theory rather than on the application of this theory to analysis of actual teaching and learning events. No one would desire to deny the instant value of classroom materials for teachers of beginner-bilingual students, numerous of whom are denied any constant support in the classroom, in the form either of an experienced EAL teacher or of proper and adequate training linked to working with bilingual students: positively, the provision and development of appropriate as well as working classroom materials have offered a helpful lifeline to lots of teachers on the brink of despair.

Additionally, the requirement to develop such materials, as well the bases upon which they are developed, is typically underpinned by staid theory and research in the area. Though, the complexity with a prominence on classroom materials, if it is at the expense of professional development linked more particularly to pedagogy, is (a) that it just produces a quick-fix, short-term solution to a more enduring difficulty; (b) that it redirects teachers’ attentions away from the actual issues at stake, which are to do with how bilingual students are marginalized and silence, and how teachers can best assist those students to conquer such marginalization.

Placing such an importance on pedagogy is, a potentially risky business, as it inexorably quotes, describes and evaluates practice which is distinctly ineffective, counterproductive or absolutely hostile, besides practice which is effective, accommodating and understanding. It might also, proffer examples of practice which take a practical, realistic view of the place of teaching within the wider social framework and within the grammar of that wider perspective alongside examples of practice that shows to operate only within the restricted grammatical framework of the particular classroom or school situation within which the teacher is working.

Whereas the latter practice might often though not completely be characterized by its fundamentally reactive nature (‘this is what needs to be done concerning this student or set of students in order to keep discipline, makes them more prone to achieve their best grades, and so on’), the former is more characteristically characterized by its fundamentally responsive nature (‘this is what need to be done concerning this student or set of students in order to maximize their opportunities-and the opportunities of all people-in the wider social framework in which they must operate’).

As in a real case, a teacher who is deal with a work of art by recently arrived a bilingual student a work which apparently does not conform to any of the preset, outwardly fixed criteria by which the student will consequently be adjudged to be a proficient artist. The teacher’s retort to this student, as someone who is simply not compliant up to standard of artistic practice, leads her to treat the student totally in terms of the amount of time and effort he is likely to demand and of the improbability of his ever being able to attain the necessary skill to pass a public assessment in the subject. Her pedagogy in relation to this student as a result becomes one subjugated by the need for repression and surveillance rather than by a stress on development. Against this, there is the teacher who, on encountering an almost same situation, assesses the student’s work (a) within the potential frames of allusion of a hypothetical alternative set of cultural practices and predilections, This might not match to the criteria by which the student’s capability will be judged here, but could they possibly conform more strongly to those that apply somewhere else?’), as well as (b) within the framework of the skills and general expertise the student will require in order to be considered competent within the terms of reference of the new symbolic value system within which they are now working (‘What extra skills will the student need to attain in order to be successful in the public examination in this subject?’).

These two quite diverse perspectives on and interpretations of bilingual students’ work, partially caused by deviating, autobiographically rooted views as to what the teacher’s role must be, can lead to two quite distinct pedagogies and contribute to two very diverse learning outcomes (Alladina, Safder. 1995).

The risk in making such identifications along with comparisons of teachers’ practice lies partly in its instant openness to misinterpretation. There is always the prospect, for instance, that the critical analysis of positive episodes of classroom practice will be read as a common criticism directed toward all teachers, signifying that they have a personal and exclusive accountability for everything that goes wrong with a student’s education a view too often originating from the official views and agendas of central government. There are as well the dangers that case studies can generalize the ‘messy complexity of the classroom’ and its never more than ‘partially apprehend able practice’ (Goodson and Walker 1991, p.xii), or that they can entertain attention from where and in whose hands the larger troubles lie. On the other hand, teachers are, very keen to develop the quality of their work and find it as practical to reflect upon examples of futile practice as to imitate upon examples of practice that appear to be ‘good’.

Teachers do not require being secluded from notions of improvement. Certainly, to treat them as if they do is as impertinent as to believe that their presented experience and expertise must be ignored.

Teaching to children’s low level of English is found even in bilingual programs and in spite of the children’s academic proficiency in their first language. In several schools the bilingual language curriculum is so impecunious that children cannot function in the more complex English-language lessons except at the lowest levels available. In writing instruction for secondary level limited English-proficient students, writing is frequently used mainly in response to test items or worksheets, to the elimination of more demanding expository writing (Moll & Diaz, 1986).

More lately, this similar phenomenon has become apparent in computer instruction. Poor and LEP students do drill and practice; affluent and English-fluent students do predicament solving and programming ( Boruta, Carpenter, Harvey, Keyser, Labonte, Mehan, & Rodriguez, 1983; Mehan, Moll, & Riel, 1985). In all cases, students are locked into the lower levels of the curriculum.

Part of the predicament is the devastating pressure to make LEP students fluent in English at all costs. Learning English, not learning, has become the controlling goal of instruction for these students, even if it places the children susceptible academically. This prominence, usually based on the assumption that a lack of English skills is the prime if not sole determinant of the children’s academic failure, has become yet another means to preserve the educational status quo and contributes significantly to the domineering failure rate of Latinos and other minority youth in schools. This argument does not counteract the goal of children mastering English and achieving rationally in that language. Parents and teachers want that; it is obviously an important goal.

The pedagogical validation for the reductionist practices described above is as follows: These children require learning how to deal with English-language schooling; therefore it is crucial that they learn English as soon as possible; otherwise they might never be competent to benefit from instruction. Thus, while faced with LEP children, usually at diverse levels of English-language fluency, the foundation makes it seem quite rational for teachers to group children by fluency and regulate the curriculum accordingly, typically starting with the teaching of the simplest skill at least until the children know adequate English to benefit from more advanced instruction. Of course, learning English will take a little time, and the students might fall so far behind academically that disappointment is guaranteed. That risk seems inevitable to those who advocate this approach.

It is as well found that current bilingual education teaching and learning strategies gain from a holistic approach for biliteracy instruction ( Rigg & Scott Enright, 1986; Rivers, 1986). Such an approach values the bilingual students’ background knowledge and strengths in developing discovery and inquiry learning modes. Thus, teaching is hasty rather than structured instruction.

Holistic teaching amalgamates multi-level of communication skills listening, speaking, reading, and writing concurrently in the learning process. The entire, rather than its parts, are significant. From a holistic teaching approach, reading and writing are related processes. Reading can generate writing and writing generates reading. It must be noted that an approach derives from a theoretical perspective, whereas a method or technique is a practical relevance based on an approach.

Holistic teaching approaches utilize the four communication skills in every learning situation. Students learn not simply through formal instruction, but through the possibilities of discovery and inquiry. Learners, furthermore, are bounded by meaningful language contexts in which they can commence and react in the discovery and inquiry process and imaginatively seek to learn in a reactive, impulsive manner, rather than in passive, structured learning settings.

The holistic teaching methods and strategies’ most renowned in recent research for bilingual children developing literacy skills in two languages are the language experience approach, dialogue journal writing, the conference-centered approach, and ethnographic teaching methods. These approaches center on the communicative functions of bilingual development supporting researchers who advocate the native literacy approach as a method to allow Latino children to develop expertise in their native language so that they can instigate to read in that language. This approach has the added benefit of demonstrating to children that their native language is renowned as valuable and valuable.

Most assaults on bilingual education arise from an unsupported fear that English will be neglected in the United Kingdom, whereas, in fact, the remaining of the world fears the opposite; the attraction of English and interest in British culture are seen by non-English-speaking nations as an intimidation to their own languages and cultures. It is duplicitous because most opponents of using languages other than English for instruction also desire to encourage foreign language requirements for high school graduation. Finally, it is regressive and xenophobic as the rest of the world considers capability in at least two languages to be the marks of good education.

Educating bilingual students has to go outside merely teaching them English or merely sustaining their native language. The worlds of work demands that graduate attain not only high-level literacy skills in English, and even facts of other languages, but also analytic ability and the capability to learn new things. Bilingual students have not simply the potential but also the right to be prepared to meet up the challenges of modern society.

Criticisms of bilingual education are not all tenuous. Some bilingual programs are inappropriate for conveying quality education even if they have marked off some successful students. Much of the credit goes to the daring efforts of individual teachers (Brisk, 1990, 1994a).

Numerous bilingual programs are substandard. Somewhat than offering a blanket approval for programs on the basis of whether they use the children’s native language, advocates of bilingual education need to be selective by supporting only those programs and schools that adhere to the principles of good education for bilingual students. Bilingual education too often falls victim to political, economic, and social forces that feed on unfavorable attitudes toward bilingual programs, teachers, students, their families, languages, and cultures.

Such approaches translate into school characteristics that limit quality education for language minority students. Research on effective schools exhibits that schools can arouse academic achievement for students regardless of how situational factors persuade them. Deliberations of language and culture facilitate English language development devoid of sacrificing the native language and the ability to function in a cross-cultural world.

Implementation and evaluation of bilingual education programs require to move beyond supporting what have too often become compensatory programs. All students, but particularly bilinguals, deserve quality programs that prevail over negative stereotypes. Abundant consequences from empirical research and experience can help show the way.

Numerous bilingual programs exist as school districts must fulfill with legislation and court decisions. They survive in segregation within unsupportive schools where the attitudes toward the program are negative and the prospects of students are low. Students reject their identity in schools that do not accept their culture, but cannot adopt a new one ( Commins, 1989). Such students often become angry and unsettling ( Brisk, 1991b; McCollum, 1993). “One wonders what the achievements of such students would be if their energies were enlightened by an environment in which they no longer desired to trade ethnicity for school learning” ( Secada & Lightfoot, 1993, p. 53).

Schools without clear goals depend on the individual teacher for the quality of the program and are more vulnerable to ideological pressures. Devoid of explicit goals for bilingual education, confusion and discontent between staff and community are expected results. Lack of leadership and inclusion of the program leads to disparities in opinion with respect to the purpose of bilingual education. While English-speaking and a bilingual faculties do not share goals, a profound gap in communication develops amongst the faculty members, affecting teachers, students, and language use.

Though many teachers are well qualified, escalating demands on personnel have resulted in the hiring of inadequately qualified teachers or the recycling of mainstream teachers with no training to teach bilingual students. Because the program is often seen as remedial, curriculums are narrow, materials are deficient, and assessment is inadequate to English language development.

Such bilingual education programs must not be supported. The bilingual education should be supported not merely because it is good for bilingual students, but also because its accomplishment can benefit schools as a whole.

References:

AAhad M. Osman-Gani & Zidan, S.S. “Cross-Cultural Implications of Planned on-the- job Training. Advances in Develpoing Human Resources, vol.3, no.4, pp.452-460. November, 2001.

Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed. ). New York: Basil Blackwell

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Rowley, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Arvizu S. F., Hernández-Chavez E., Guskin J., & Valadez C. ( 1992). Bilingual education in community contexts: A two-site comparative research design. In M. Saravia-Shore & S. F. Arvizu (Eds.), Cross-cultural literacy: Ethnographies of communication in multiethnic classrooms (pp. 83-130). New York: Garland.

Boruta M., Carpenter C., Harvey M., Keyser M., Labonte J., Mehan H., & Rodriguez D. ( 1983). Computers in schools: Stratifier or equalizer? The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5( 3), 51-55.
Brisk M. E. ( 1990). The many voices of education for bilingual students in Massachusetts. Quincy: Massachusetts Department of Education.

Brisk M. E. ( 1991a). Cross cultural barriers: A model for schooling bilingual and English-speaking students in harmony. Equity and Choice, 7(2), 18-24
.
Brisk M. E. ( 1991b). The many voices of bilingual students in Massachusetts. Quincy: Bureau of Equity and Language Services, Massachusetts Department of Education.

Brisk M. E. ( 1994a). Portraits of success: Resources supporting bilingual learners. Boston:Massachusetts Association for Bilingual Education.

Casanova U., & Arias M. B. ( 1993). Contextualizing bilingual education. In M. B. Arias & U. Casanova (Eds.), Bilingual education: Politics, practice and research (pp. 1-35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Commins N. L. ( 1989). Language and affect: Bilingual students at home and at school. Language Arts, 66, 29-43.

Diaz S., Moll L. C., & Mehan H. ( 1986). Sociocultural resources in instruction: A context-specific approach. In Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 187-230). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304-241).
Francis, P. (1999) ‘Do it yourself soap’, The Secondary English Magazine, 2(4):18.

Franklin E. A.( 1986). “Literacy instruction for LES children”. Language Arts, 63( 1), 51-60.

Freire P.( 1985). “Reading the world and reading the word”. Language Arts, 62( 1), 15-22.

Goodson, I.F. and Walker, R. (1991) Biography, Identity and Schooling, London, Falmer Press.

Harvey, D. (1991) The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford: Basil Blackwell

McCollum P. A. ( 1993, April). Learning to value English: Cultural capital in a two-way bilingual program. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

McLeod A.( 1986). “Critical literacy: Taking control of our own lives”. Language Arts, 63( 1), 37-49.

Mehan H. ( 1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mehan H., Moll L. C., & Riel, M. ( 1985). Computers in classrooms: A quasi-experiment in guided change (Final Rep. No. NIE-G-83-0027). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Milk R. D. ( 1993). Bilingual education and English as a second language: The elementary school. In M. B. Arias & U. Casanova (Eds.), Bilingual education: Politics, practice and research (pp 88-112). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nieto S. ( 1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman.

Porter R. P. ( 1994, May 18). Goals 2000 and the bilingual student. Education Week, p. 44

Rigg P., & Scott D. Enright(Eds.). ( 1986). Children and ESL: Integrating perspectives. Washington, DC: Teachers of English as a Second Language.

Rivers J.( 1986, March). Whole language in the elementary classroom. “Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages”, Anaheim, CA.

Secada W., & Lightfoot T. (1993). Symbols and the political contest of bilingual education in the United States. In M. B. Arias & U. Casanova (Eds.), Bilingual education: Politics, practice and research (pp. 36-64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vygotsky L. S. ( 1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wells G.( 1987). “Apprenticeship in literacy”. Interchange, 18( 12), 109-123.