PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 61
COMMENTARIES
A Brief History of Bilingual Education in the United States
By David Nieto, University of Massachusetts Boston
INTRODUCTION
In the history of the United States
of America, multilingual communities
have subsisted side by side. Among the
many languages spoken throughout the
country, we could mention first all the
original Native American languages
and then a multitude of languages that
immigrants from all over the world
have brought into the country. Together with English, Italian, German,
Dutch, Polish, French, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese are just some of the
more than two hundred languages that
have been spoken in the United States.
As James Crawford (2004) has noted,
“Language diversity in North America
has ebbed and flowed, reaching its lowest level in the mid-20th century. But it
has existed in every era, since long before the United States constituted itself
as a nation” (p. 59).
Such a phenomenon is partly a result of the fact that immigration is one
of the authenticities in the history of the
United States of America. Immigration
is one of the most prominent features
of the country, together with the promise of liberty and a better life, which led
this nation to be labelled a nation of
immigrants. As Sonia Nieto (1992) asserts, contrary to many contemporary
arguments about immigration,
Immigration is not a phenomenon
of the past. In fact, the experience
of immigration is still fresh in the
minds of a great many people in
our country. It is an experience that
begins anew every day that planes
land, ships reach our shores, and
people make their way on foot to
borders. Many of the students in
our schools, even if they themselves
are not immigrants, have parents or
grandparents who were. The United
States is thus not only a nation of
immigrants as seen in some idealized and romanticized past; it is also
a living nation of immigrants even
today. (p. 333)
In fact, Fix and Passel (2003) estimate that during the 1990s the number
of immigrants that entered the U.S.
exceeded that of any previous decade
in the U.S. history. They also indicate
that, together with the immigrant population overall, the English Language
Learner (ELL) population increased by
52 percent in the 1990s. In addition,
they projected that the in-flow of immigrants would be sustained, if not increased, during the 2000s.The diverse
demographic reality of the U.S. is still
changing drastically. Early 20th century
European migration was superseded
by the number of immigrants that arrived from Latin America and Asia in
the second half of the century. By the
year 2000, more than a quarter of the
population was composed of ethnic
minorities. Latinos have already surpassed African Americans as the nation’s largest minority, and they are expected to make up to 25 percent of the
total population of the country by 2050
(Suarez-Orozco & Páez, 2002).
However, despite the vast richness
of such a linguistic and cultural landscape, quick assimilation into English
is another prevailing characteristic of
U.S. history. The pattern of linguistic assimilation, or ‘language shift’,
has been documented to last no more
than three generations. Consequently,
grandchildren of today’s new immigrants will hardly speak the language
of their ancestors (Schmidt, 2000). The
uniqueness of such an extended process
of language shift led the linguist Einar
Haugen (1972) to define it as ‘Babel in
Reverse.’
This process of rapid linguistic assimilation into English may have been
the origin of one of the assumptions
about language and education in the
United States; namely, that former im-
migrants integrated into the American
mainstream without any special type
of instruction or curriculum “aide.”
Nevertheless, this process of Anglicisation cannot exactly be characterized
as a voluntary assimilation. As Urban
& Wagoner (2003) have pointed out,
“assimilation […] was neither completely painless nor evenly or eagerly
embraced by all groups” (p. 388).
The actual situation was much more
complex. Various cultural groups have
embraced and resisted the assimilation process in numerous ways and at
different times. Wiley (1999) claimed
that, whereas languages that came
from Europe were generally more accepted and tolerated, those of Native
Americans, Africans, and the Mexican
territories were intentionally depleted
by being assigned an inferior status.
Regardless of whether the process
was voluntary or whether it was forced,
it is significant to identify at least two
of its most pronounced effects. One effect is the emergence of feelings of frustration that many immigrant students
experience when forced to abandon
their language, which also puts them
at odds with their families and communities, who may have less direct access to the mainstream (Brisk, 1998;
Urban & Wagoner, 2003). The imposition of linguistic behaviors leaves an
imprint of ambivalence toward one’s
own native language, the value of one’s
cultural background, and, ultimately, the value of oneself (Bartolomé,
2008; McCarty, 2000; Nieto, 1992;).
The second effect of such a linguistic approach in education may have a
direct connection with the significantly
lower grades and higher dropout rates
that immigrant students have persistently attained in the history of American Education (Crawford, 2004). This
achievement gap has usually been attributed to the social class and the rural
background of many immigrants, but
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
other factors have been left unexplored.
Sonia Nieto (1992) observed that,
Curriculum and pedagogy, rather
than using the lived experiences
of students as a foundation, have
been based on what can be described as an alien and imposed
reality. The rich experiences of
millions of our students, their parents, grandparents, and neighbours
have been kept strangely quiet. Although we almost all have an immigrant past, very few of us know
or even acknowledge it. (p. 334)
As a consequence, the linguistic and
cultural realities of a large number of
students have been purposefully not
only forgotten, but also silenced in
schools’ curricula. In this sense, and
regardless of the number and the diversity of the individuals and groups that
have entered the country, the prime
institutional attitude that has been officially adopted toward languages other
than English in the United States can
be labelled as “indifferent” (Crawford,
1989). The notion that presided over
such a political position was that most
people would understand the convenience and advantages of learning English and thus would tend to abandon
their mother tongues without coercion.
Still, the U.S. government has had a
fundamental role in promoting the conformity into Anglicisation standards.
At times, it has been more open and accepting of the multilingual reality and
at others blatantly repressive and intolerant (Crawford, 1989; Schmid, 2001).
Within the context of language legislation in education in the U.S. during the 20th century, the present article
attempts to assess the importance of
ideological considerations and political
momentum over empirical data at the
time of choosing and implementing bilingual education programs. Following
Cummins’ (1999) assertion that experimental and quasi-experimental studies, as necessary as they are to prove
the validity of bilingual education, are
not enough to evaluate the quality of
bilingual programs, I believe that it is
essential to build a coherent theoretical
framework in order to assess the potential of such programs and neutralize
the negative discourse against them. In
such a theory, it becomes indispensable
to include elements of race and culture
and an explicit theory of language.
Examining the research literature, I
use the relatively recent case of Massachusetts’ Question 2 to explore the relevant role of ideology and socio-political
expectations at the time of probing the
continuation of bilingual education. In
2002, the mid-term elections in Massachusetts included a ballot question,
Question 2, to decide about the future
of the bilingual programs offered in the
state up to that moment. The case of
Massachusetts clearly exemplifies the
role of ideology and politics in shaping
education policy in general and bilingual education in particular.
LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION IN THE
UNITED STATES
Prior to the twentieth century, the
U.S. government had actively imposed
the use of English among Native Americans and the inhabitants of the incorporated territories of the Southwest. By
the 1880s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
implemented a policy of forced Anglicisation for Native Americans sending Indian children to boarding schools. Such
policies did not succeed in eradicating
the children’s native languages, but it
did instil in them a sense of shame that
guaranteed the exclusive use of English
for future generations (Crawford, 1998;
McCarty, 2002).
In order to ensure linguistic and
cultural control of the new territories
on the Southwest, the U.S. government adopted two different strategies.
The first one entailed delimiting state
borders to favor an English-speaking
majority by splitting Spanish-speaking
communities. The second strategy involved the deferral of the recognition of
statehood until English-speaking settlers had sufficiently populated the new
territories. For this reason, California
was accepted as a state in 1850, Nevada
in 1864, Colorado in 1876, and Utah in
1896. In the case of New Mexico, which,
at the time of its incorporation in 1848,
included Arizona, it took the Federal
government 60 years to grant full statehood to the two states contained in this
territory (MacGregor-Mendoza, 1998).
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 62
However, it was not until the approval of the Nationality Act in Texas
in 1906 that English was officially
designated as the only language to be
taught in schools. In addition, the Nationality Act required all immigrants
to speak English in order to be eligible
to start their process of naturalization
(Perez, 2004). This justification of the
imposition of English was based on
the explicit connection between English and U.S. national identity and on
the empirically-determined correlation between bilingualism and inferior
intelligence (Schmid, 2001). In 1917,
Congress passed the Burnett Act, which
required all new immigrants to pass a
literacy test and prohibited immigration from Asia, except for Japan and
the Philippines. Such a measure reveals
the closeness between racial prejudice
and linguistic restrictions. At this time,
the previous tolerance toward German
speakers turned to hostility (Schmid,
2001; Wiley, 2002). Not much later,
President Theodore Roosevelt (1926)
emphasized the connection between
English acquisition and loyalty to the
U.S. with the following statement,
We have room for but one language
in this country and that is the English language, for we intend to see
that the crucible turns our people
out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a
polyglot boarding house. ([1919]
1926: XXIV, 554 as cited in Crawford, 2001)
The hostile climate against languages other than English would result in
the drastic reduction of any type of bilingual instruction in the U.S. According to Crawford (1998), the restriction
of language use had two intentions. The
first purpose was to deprive minorities
of their individual rights in order to
frustrate worker solidarity. The second
one was to institute a perception of the
United States as an exclusively Anglo
community. Such an ideological strategy was to remain quite constant until
the 1960s.
However, the Supreme Court refused to back those restrictive practices.
The first legal case that had a noticeable
impact on education policy was Meyer
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
vs. Nebraska, 262 US 390 in 1923.
Meyer, a German parochial instructor,
was accused of violating a Nebraska
law enacted in 1919 that prohibited instruction in any foreign language. The
Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution by limiting individual
inalienable rights (Tollefson, 2002a).
In 1927, in the case Farrington v.
Tokushige 273 U.S. 284, the Supreme
Court invalidated the law that banned
foreign language instruction without a
permit in schools in Hawaii. The Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting
schools to teach in a language other
than English violates constitutional
rights protected under the Fifth Amendment (Cordasco, 1976; DelValle, 2003;
Tollefson, 2002a).
Following these precedents, courts
kept on affirming the right of citizens
to learn and teach their language of
preference. In 1949, Mo Hock Ke Lok
Po v. Stainback, the judge sentenced
that parents have the right to have
their children taught in the language
they choose (Cordasco, 1976; DelValle,
2003).
In 1954, in the case Brown vs. the
Board of Education of Topeka, the Supreme Court advanced a major shift in
educational policy by declaring that enforced segregation of schools inherently promotes inequality and ordering its
immediate desegregation. In a second
part of this sentence in 1955, the Supreme Court added the recommendation “with deliberate speed” (as cited in
Urban & Wagoner, 2003). In its ruling,
the Supreme Court acknowledged for
the first time the unequal, disadvantageous, and unfair educational situation
of people of color in the U.S. and prescribed action to correct the situation
(Urban & Wagoner, 2003).
The Brown vs. the Board of Education sentence motivated the African
American community in their struggle
for civil rights. They launched an intense campaign of political activism
that eventually provoked other similar
rulings against segregation in public
schools, such as the Little Rock integration decision in 1957 (Urban & Wagoner, 2003). The social movement that
started at this point would culminate
with the passage of the Civil Rights Act
in 1964, which outlawed discrimination. At the same time, Title VI, the part
of the Civil Rights Act that pertained to
education, became the paramount initiative for bilingual education in the
United States. Title VI allowed funds to
be withheld from school districts that
maintained segregation or did not promote integration (DelValle, 2003; Urban & Wagoner, 2003).
The Civil Rights movement helped
to intensify the actions of the League
of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). This organization was created in
the 1920s with the goal of fighting the
discriminatory treatment of Mexican
Americans in public schools and to promote a better education for the Mexican
American community. Other groups
in defense of ethno-linguistic minorities were also established, such as the
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund
(MALDEF), which was formed under
the advice of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Along with the struggle
for desegregation of Mexican American
students, these organizations fought
to gain recognition for the fundamental language and cultural differences
between their communities and the
‘Anglo-White’ mainstream. The lack
of any reference to multiculturalism in
an all-English curriculum fostered low
academic achievement in such communities (Urban & Wagoner, 2003).
In the 1960s, ethno-linguistic minorities experienced a pronounced increase in numbers. The lack of access
to a meaningful education hindered
the possibility of full participation in
society for these non-English speaking
students and blocked their upward mobility. Both facts motivated Congress
to pass the Bilingual Education Act of
1968, also known as Title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (Crawford, 1989).
The Bilingual Education Act has
been considered the most important
law in recognizing linguistic minority rights in the history of the United
States. The law did not force school districts to offer bilingual programs, but it
encouraged them to experiment with
new pedagogical approaches by funding programs that targeted principally
low-income and non-English speaking
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 63
populations (Crawford, 1989, 2004;
DelValle, 2003; Ricento, 1998).
Title VII represented the first bilingual and bicultural education program that was approved at the federal
level. It offered supplemental funding
for those districts that developed special programs to meet the needs of
students whose English was not proficient. It granted funding for planning
and developing bilingual programs and
for defraying the costs of training and
operating those programs (Schmid,
2001). The main idea was to provide
part of the instruction in the student’s
native language in order to ease her/
his transition into the mainstream.
Such approach is known as “transitional bilingual education” (Cordasco,
1976; DelValle, 2003). As the first federal law in the United States that dealt
with issues of language, the passage of
the Bilingual Educational Act provoked
people to express language attitudes
and beliefs that had little to do with instruction and a lot to do with ideological positions (Crawford, 2004).
In 1974, the Bilingual Education Act
was amended to explicitly define bilingual educational programs, identify
goals, and stipulate the requirement of
feedback and progress reports from the
programs. At the time, the lack of a systematic means of determining success
of such programs was considered one
of the failures of bilingual education
(Bangura & Muo, 2001). In addition,
the terms of eligibility were broadened
by eliminating the low-income requirement that was included in the Act of
1968 (Crawford, 1989).
The same year, the Supreme Court
ruled in Lau v. Nichols, 414 US 563,
565. This ruling reinforced the mandate that it was the school district’s
responsibility to provide the necessary programs and accommodations
to children who did not speak English.
In this case, a group of approximately
eight hundred Chinese students in San
Francisco raised a case of discrimination against their school district. These
non-English speaking students argued
that they were left in a “sink or swim”
situation by being taught exclusively
in English, a language they could not
yet fully understand (Schmid, 2001;
Wiley, 2002). The Supreme Court rea-
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
soned that ���������������������������
the responsibility to overcome language barriers that impede
full integration of students falls on the
school boards and not on the parents or
children; otherwise, there is no real access for these students to a meaningful
education (Cordasco 1976, Crawford,
2004). The importance of this decision
is clear, considering that, in a related
previous sentence in 1973, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals had argued,
The discrimination suffered by
these children is not the result of
laws passed by the state of California, presently or historically, but is
the result of deficiencies created by
the children themselves in failing
to know and learn the English language. (as cited in Wiley, 2002, p.
55)
Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court
did not base the decision on the Constitution, but on Title VI, which prohibits
discrimination on the grounds of race,
color, or national origin. As a result,
the Supreme Court did not address the
question of whether there is a constitutional right to educational assistance
for language minority students, and it
implied that there is no constitutional
right to bilingual education (DelValle,
2003; Schmid, 2001).
The Lau ruling did not mentioned
any specific remedies; it just mentioned
‘appropriate action.’ In 1975, the Office
of Civil Rights released a series of guidelines by which school districts should
abide in order to comply with the Supreme Court Lau decision. These guidelines were named the ‘Lau Remedies’
and essentially promoted transitional
bilingual education programs. The Lau
remedies were to be withdrawn in 1981
(Crawford, 1989; DelValle, 2003). That
year, in the case Castaneda v. Pickard
the Fifth Circuit established three requirements to define what appropriate
action meant when implementing programs to help language minority students overcome language barriers: The
program (1) must be based on sound
educational theory, (2) must have sufficient resources and personnel, and (3)
must prove to be effective in teaching
students English. These requirements
offered ample leeway for districts re-
luctant to implement bilingual education programs (DelValle, 2003).
In the eighties, the Reagan administration led a major campaign against
bilingual education and in favour of a
“back to basics” education. The Reagan administration defined the United
States as a “nation at risk of balkanization” and blamed non-English speaking
communities for such a risk (Crawford,
1989). As early as 1981, the senator S.I.
Hayakawa introduced a constitutional
amendment aimed at adopting English
as the official language of the United
States. Later, in 1983, he founded U.S.
English, a non-profit organization that
promotes English as the official language of the United States and discredits bilingual education (Padilla et al.,
1991).
The principal reasons to criticize
bilingual education were derived from
Keith Baker and Adriane de Kanter’s
(1981, 1983) evaluation of bilingual
education programs. By compiling and
analyzing the results of previous studies, they concluded that bilingual education was not an effective means to
meet the needs of language minority
students. However, their evaluations
were rapidly contested by critics who
pointed out that the authors had left out
significant variables in their analysis,
and, if these variable had been included, “the results from the meta-analysis
[would have] consistently yielded small
to moderate differences supporting bilingual education” (Padilla et al., 1991,
p. 126).
In 1994, under the Improving America’s Schools Act, the Bilingual Education Act was reauthorized. The law
made explicit its main purpose: “developing bilingual skills and multicultural
understanding” (as cited in Crawford,
2004, p. 19). For the first time, bilingual education was not only considered
a resource to help immigrants become
fluent English speakers, but also a potential asset to improve the country’s
prospects, a way to “develop our Nation’s national languages resources,
thus promoting our Nation’s competitiveness in the global economy” (Crawford, 2004, p. 20).
The result of this extension was the
promotion and establishment of developmental bilingual education, which
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 64
included “two-way” bilingual programs.
These programs continue to serve
mainstream and language-minority
students. Both groups of students benefit from the opportunity to acquire and
fully develop their skills in a second language (Crawford, 2004). Shortly after
the passage of the Improving America’s
Schools Act, in the fall of 1994, Proposition 187 was passed in California, a
policy that made it illegal for children
of undocumented immigrants to attend
public schools. The proposition was declared unconstitutional, but it fuelled
the drive to pass new initiatives toward
limiting the rights of and benefits previously accorded to immigrants (Crawford, 2004).
In 1996, the House of Representatives approved the designation of English as the nation’s official language and
banned the use of other languages by
government agencies and officials. The
bill did not pass in the Senate. In 1998,
Proposition 227, promoted by multimillionaire Ron Unz, was adopted in
California. Proposition 227 ended the
bilingual education programs throughout the state of California, which were
substituted with English-only instruction models (Crawford, 2004). Similar
propositions that eliminated instruction in any language other than English
were approved in the year 2000 in Arizona and in 2001 in Colorado (Crawford, 2001, 2004).
This wave of anti-bilingualism
policies reached its peak with George
W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) in 2002. The law, which was a
reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), did
not officially ban bilingual programs,
but it imposed a high-stakes testing
system that promoted the adoption and
implementation of English-only instruction. Furthermore, all references
to bilingual education in the previous
ESEA were eliminated in the new legislation (Crawford, 2004).
As all of the above mentioned policy
changes toward the restriction or exclusion of bilingual education were passed,
evidence about the beneficial effects of
bilingual education increased (Crawford, 2004; Krashen, 1996). Greene
(1998) reported in a meta-analysis
summarizing the scholarly research on
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
bilingual education that children with
limited English proficiency who are
taught using at least some of their native language perform significantly better on standardized tests than similar
children who are taught only in English. This conclusion was based on the
statistical combination of eleven studies. These studies were selected for the
quality of their research design from a
total of seventy-five studies reviewed.
They included standardized test score
results from 2,719 students in thirteen
different states, 1,562 of whom were
enrolled in bilingual programs. Further
studies show that providing instruction
in the students’ native languages does
not only facilitate English acquisition
but also strengthens content knowledge
attainment (Cummins, 2000; Krashen,
2004; Thomas & Collier, 1997).
Detractors of bilingual education
argue that the use of the native language delays the acquisition of English and that it is more efficient to
place students in all-English programs
where they may receive language support (Baker, 1998). However, further
studies have shown that it may take
up to seven years to master academic
English (Hakuta et al., 2000; Krashen,
2004). In any case, as Donaldo Macedo
(2000) contends, if standardized test
results and supposed low literacy skills
are used as the empirical evidence that
bilingual education does not work,
such a line of reasoning could also be
applied to foreign language departments in schools all over the country,
and, nevertheless, no one advocates for
their elimination.
Bilingual education has also been
blamed for retarding the process of assimilation for immigrants. However,
this claim cannot be based on any empirical data. In the first place, such a
vision overlooks the fact that linguistic
minorities in the U.S. are not only comprised of recently arrived immigrants
and their children but also of enslaved
and indigenous peoples, including
inhabitants of those territories that
have been annexed to the U.S. (Wiley,
2002). The most probable rationale of
such an argument is to be found in the
fact that the origin of most immigrants
has shifted from Europe to Asia and
Latin-America. Such a shift has trig-
gered feelings about the unity of the nation, the endangered dominant ethnic
identity, and the gradual decline of the
English language. Samuel Huntington
(2004) and Patrick Buchanan (2006)
equate ‘Anglo-Protestant culture’ to the
‘American Creed,’ and identify multiculturalism and the retention of other
(Hispanic) cultural values, including
language and bilingual education, as
a threat to the ‘American way of life.’
Martinez (2007) claims that such a discourse longs for a return to the days in
which being White was a requisite in
order to be eligible for citizenship. He
argues that the end of bilingual education is part of a global strategy to curtail
immigration from Third World countries, especially Mexico.
Certainly, the discourse against bilingual education transcends educational empirical research. Henry Giroux (2001) affirms that, in the United
States, the discourse of monolingualism attempts to portray minorities as a
threat to the American way of life and
as an excuse to attack multiculturalism,
bilingual education, affirmative action,
welfare reform, or any other sign of diversity and ‘the Other.’ Furthermore,
Lilia Bartolomé (2008) argues, “the
practice of forbidding the use of nonEnglish languages has constituted the
more prevalent contemporary language
practice in the US,” (p. 378), explaining
that language education itself is being
used as an instrument of discourse and
ideological power (Wiley, 2002).
In summary, ideological positions
about American identity and White
supremacy result in the association of
bilingualism with inferior intelligence
and a lack of patriotism in the United
States. The word ‘bilingual,’ beyond
denoting ‘speaker of two languages,’
has come to symbolize an immigrant,
typically a Latino or Latina, who does
not—and refuses to—speak English
correctly and, therefore, who cannot
be considered ‘American’ (Spolsky,
2004; Tollefson, 2002b). All these ideological forces and assumptions played
an important role at the time voters
came to the polls to decide whether
or not to continue implementing bilingual programs in Massachusetts,
as is examined in the next section.
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 65
THE CASE FOR MASSACHUSETTS:
QUESTION 2
The struggle of the Latino community in Massachusetts “led to the first
state-mandated, transitional bilingualeducation program in the United States
in 1969” (Uriarte & Chavez, 2000, p.1).
In the 1970s, Boston bore witness to
one of the most bitter school desegregation cases in the United States. The
city school’s committee refused unashamedly to comply with the federal
court’s mandates to desegregate public
schools. Eventually, the federal district
judge Arthur Garrity had to develop
several plans and policies to override
the refusal of desegregation of the Boston School Committee. The practices
that were developed at that point included extensive Bilingual Education
programs (Urban & Wagoner, 2003).
Educational practices moved toward the measurement of outcomes
early in Massachusetts. In 1993, the
Educational Reform Act was approved.
It established the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
as the official and primary measure of
students’ achievement. The adoption
of standardised tests as a reliable indicator of students’ progress was and
still is in question for many educators,
especially with regards to those children who do not belong to the dominant class, race, and culture (Uriarte &
Chavez, 2000).
Bilingual education, although insufficiently funded, was widespread in
Massachusetts. In the mid-term elections of 2002, among the referendum
questions, a question about the suitability of bilingual education programs
in the State was included on the ballot. The English Language Education
in Public Schools, Question 2, was an
initiative of Ron Unz and the U.S. English group under the slogan “English
for the Children” (Berriz, 2005). The
rationale for such an initiative was
based on the assertion that “the public
schools of Massachusetts have done an
inadequate job of educating many immigrant children, requiring that they
be placed in native language programs
whose failure over the past decades is
demonstrated by the low English literacy levels of those children,” and the
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
assumption that “immigrant children
can easily acquire full fluency and literacy in a new language, such as English,
if they are taught that language in the
classroom as soon as they enter school”
(Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, 2002).
Massachusetts residents voted
overwhelmingly in favor of Question 2.
The proposition replaced the law that
provided transitional bilingual education in the State “with a law requiring
that, with limited exceptions, all public
school children must be taught English
by being taught all subjects in English
and being placed in English language
classrooms” (Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2002).
Bilingual programs were immediately
substituted with sheltered English immersion (SEI) programs whose main
purpose was to teach English language
acquisition and content instruction
at the same time. English language
learners could be included no longer
than one year in SEI programs. After
that period, they would be placed into
mainstream classes. Parents or guardians were given the option to apply for
a waiver not to be included in SEI programs or to place their children in a bilingual program exclusively when one
of these conditions were met: (1) the
student is already able to speak English; (2) the student is at least ten and
the school principal and teachers firmly
believe it is in the students’ best interest; or (3) the student has special physical or psychological needs (Secretary of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
2002).
In addition, the law also established
an annual standardized test—the Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA)—as a requirement to
measure the progress of English Language Learners (ELLs) (Secretary of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
2002). However, Wright & Choi (2006)
argue that���������������������������
the accountability and penalization of schools for low scores in
standardized tests end up being a burden for all students, who then have to
endure a type of “narrow-instruction”
(p. 47) that may prepare them for today’s immediate testing needs but not
for tomorrow’s education opportunities. They propose that students should
be excluded from high-stakes tests
in English until they have obtained
enough proficiency in English, and,
equally, ELLs should not be reclassified
into mainstream classrooms until they
have fully developed sufficient English
skills as to assure their future academic
prospects (Wright & Choi, 2006).
In the case of Arizona, where similar
legislation had been passed in 2000,
Wright (2005) noted, the state had developed certain procedures so that ELL
scores did not make up part of the accountability formula in schools. These
procedures, which might have been
presented as some type of advantage
or accommodation for ELL students, in
fact represented an advantage for those
administrators trying to cover the real
performance level of these students
within such language-restrictive educational policies.
Additionally, the new law in Massachusetts did not establish any special
requirement or certification for teachers to educate ELL students other than
being fluent in English. Contrary to
this approach, Wright and Choi (2006)
state that teachers should be provided
with specific training and be supported
throughout the school year. They argue that SEI classes should be taught
by certified teachers to ensure proper
attention for these students. Furthermore, in their research in Arizona, they
found that, after the implementation of
SEI, teachers felt confused about what
was and was not allowed in class according to the new laws and felt they
had not received guidance about what
type of instruction is appropriate for
ELLs. In fact, when students are placed
into mainstream classes whose teachers
do not necessarily have the adequate
knowledge to meet their unique needs,
they often struggle and fall behind academically (Facella et al., 2005).
As has been mentioned previously,
the explicit goal of the approved antibilingual education measure was to
teach English as rapidly and effectively
as possible, in just one year, by exposing
children exclusively to English instruction. However, although children are
able to master general linguistic skills
more quickly, it is estimated that students need between four and six years
to become academically proficient in a
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 66
second language (Hakuta et al., 2000;
Pray & MacSwan, 2002; Genesse et al.,
2005). In addition to linguistic skills,
it is necessary to pay attention to the
long-term academic evolution of ELLs.
Once students enter mainstream classes, the previously acquired academic
knowledge and skills are vital. Nonnative students will not only need English proficiency to succeed in school,
but also sufficient content instruction
to excel in their academic lives (Berriz, 2005). In this regard, a number
of longitudinal studies have estimated
that those students placed in bilingual
programs perform better in content
instruction classes than those placed
in other programs. For that reason,
bilingual education may contribute to
reducing the achievement gap between
ELLs and their native-English speaking
peers (August & Hakuta, 1997; Thomas
& Collier, 1997).
Question 2 enforced the minimization of the use of the students’ native
language in schools. Initially, instructors were banned from using any language other than English in class under
the penalty of being fired. This rule was
later modified in order to allow teachers to use a student’s native language
in SEI classes to help the student complete a task, to clarify a point, or to respond to a question (Berriz, 2005).
However, researchers argue that
proficiency in a second language is
best acquired when the literacy in the
first language is developed appropriately. In other words, the first language
skills operate as the basis of a common
ground that facilitates the acquisition
of the second language. The belief that
the more time students spend in a second language context the quicker they
learn a second language does not have
empirical support. The first language
serves as a bridge to the second one to
ease the transition and instil better future learning (Genesee, 1999; Genesee
et al., 2004; Krashen, 1996). In addition, other studies report that a student’s level of literacy in the first language may be a strong predictor of that
student’s potential to achieve proficiency in the second (Slavin & Cheung,
2005).
A report from the National Institute
of Child Health (2000) suggests,
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
If language-minority children arrive at school with no proficiency
in English but speaking a language
for which there are instructional
guides, learning materials, and locally available proficient teachers,
these children should be taught
how to read in their native language
while acquiring oral proficiency in
English and subsequently taught
to extend their skills to reading in
English. (p. 324)
Krashen (1996) contends that, in
order for SEI programs to be effective,
it is necessary that they provide comprehensive input in the language to be
learned, which entails that all materials and resources used in the classroom
should be adapted to meet the instructional needs and learning abilities of
ELLs. In any case, a number of studies
have shown that bilingual education
programs that are properly set up and
correctly run provide a significant advantage over all-day English programs
for children acquiring English literacy (Cummins, 2000; Greene, 1998;
Krashen, 1996; Wiley & Wright, 2004).
ELLs perform better in programs that
are designed with their needs in mind,
programs that foster challenging activities, language development, and
appropriate assessments (Genesee et
al., 2004). In this sense, it is essential
for “districts and schools [to] avoid the
use of one-size-fits-all scripted curricular programs which are not designed
for ELL students, and which cannot
account for differences in English language proficiency or academic ability”
(Wright & Choi, 2006, p. 49).
In summary, laws that limit the use
of bilingual education and restrict the
use of languages other than English
in schools lack the support of empirical data. Therefore, it is questionable
whether or not they improve the quality of the education that ELLs receive
and ultimately “reduce drop-out rates,
improve literacy acquisition rates, and
promote social and economic advancement” (Secretary of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, 2002)�������������
. On the contrary, they create confusion about the
appropriate instructional strategies
for teaching ELLs and endanger the
academic progress of these students
(Krashen, 2004; Wright & Choi, 2006).
Even worse, these laws generate a sense
of rejection and inadequacy in non-native students that impedes their social
progress and prepares them for a subordinate role in society (Berriz, 2005;
Bartolomé, 2008).
As was the case in the national arena, all available empirical data in favor
of the application and strengthening of
existent bilingual programs went completely overlooked in Massachusetts. In
November 2002, almost 70 percent of
the population of Massachusetts voted
in favor of Question 2 and against bilingual education. The reasons for such
overwhelming support of Question 2
transcend the alleged empirical reasons
about the lack of effectiveness of bilingual education. As Capetillo-Ponce &
Kramer (2006) observed, “what posed
as a referendum on bilingual education may have been, in reality, a referendum on broader socio-political and
economic aspects of Massachusetts’s
society” (p. 275). Voters
�������������������
in Massachusetts did not judge the effectiveness of
bilingual education; they pronounced a
judgment about the suitability of offering bilingual education (Rivera, 2002).
The debate about such suitability
was not decided exclusively by people
affected by bilingual education. Whereas 93% percent of the Latino population
voted against Question 2 (Berriz, 2005;
Capetillo-Ponce & Kramer, 2006), a
White majority electorate made a decision about the type of instruction
that ethnolinguistic minority students
should receive regardless of any empirical factors, instead basing this decision on political and cultural assumptions (Berriz, 2005; Markey, 2008).
The increasing immigration from
Third World countries, especially from
Latin America and Asia, the widespread belief that the use of other languages represent a serious threat to the
unity of the nation and the dominance
of English, and the feeling that bilingual education represents a gratuitous
“extra-privilege” for a group of ‘assimilation-resistant’ immigrants (mainly
Latinos) played a crucial role in the
vote on Question 2 in Massachusetts
(Capetillo-Ponce & Kramer, 2006).
Using the slogan “English for the
children,” supporters of Question 2
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 67
based their campaign on the concealment of a confusing and uncomfortable
political issue. Behind this seemingly
innocent and eloquent phrase they hid
an open confrontation between a supposedly unifying American identity
and what they deemed divisive multicultural and multilingual ethnic communities. This simplification of such
a complex question appealed to the
mainstream, White suburban voter in
Massachusetts (Markey, 2008).
In contrast, the campaign for bilingual education was founded on the
slogan “Don’t sue teachers,” a slogan
that came across as corporatist and
not centered on students. In addition,
supporters of this campaign refused
to bring cultural and racial issues into
the debate, thinking that their message
would appeal to White suburbanites,
most of whom ultimately ended up
voting in favor of Question 2 (Markey,
2008).
Immediately after the referendum,
the Boston Public Schools’ (BPS) administration dismantled all bilingual
programs in the district. The dismantling happened without any time to
plan a curriculum, acquire relevant
materials, and train teachers. However,
the ideological considerations prevailed
over considerations of the necessary
requirements to adapt and implement
a new instructional program (Berriz,
2005).,In contrast with the delayed response to desegregation in the 1970s,
such an accelerated process of policy
implementation had as its result “that
the type of instruction that most ELLs
are receiving constitutes little more
than a contemporary version of ‘sink or
swim’ submersion—a type of instruction that is illegal” (Berriz, 2005, p. 12).
Recently, a state report has revealed
that in 2008, only a little more than
fifty percent of Hispanic males graduate from high-school within four years
(The Boston Globe, 2009). Such data
shows the inadequacy of the education system that in 2002 was imposed
on these children. No doubt the consequences of Question 2 are lived day
in and day out by linguistic minority
children cultural and linguistic experiences are silenced (De los Reyes, Nieto,
& Diez, 2008). These students must
become skilled at navigating a school
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
system that tags them with a presumed
disadvantage from the beginning: their
language.
CONCLUSION AND FINAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
Often, bilingual education has been
blamed for the lack of academic skills
and educational opportunities of minority language students. However,
those shortfalls are mainly a result of
socio-economic structures of schools
and in our society. Exploring the existing research literature makes it clear
that the current negative vision of bilingual education is a response more to
highly politicized questions about preserving the American ethnic identity
and the whitewashing cultural melting
pot than to empirical facts. As Crawford
(2004) notes, “bilingual education has
aroused passions about issues of political power and social status that are far
removed from the classroom” (p. xvii).
Research has sufficiently stressed
the benefits, both psychological and
educational, for students to be placed
in classrooms where they are able to
develop their skills in content subjects
taught in their native languages and,
at the same time, develop their knowledge of a second language. Not only
does such an approach ease the transition between one language and another
without having students lose ground on
content subjects, but it also strengthens the students’ cognitive skills. Bilingual education may also have a positive effect on students’ confidence and
self-esteem because it strongly values
their previous knowledge by actively
incorporating it into daily instruction
(Crawford, 1989, 2004; Cummins,
1984, 2000; Padilla, 1991).
However, in order for bilingual education to be at the forefront of education policy, it is necessary for advocates
and researchers to face and respond to
some of the following questions that remain unanswered:
The Bilingual Education Act was not
a flawless law. Its purpose was vague,
and the means by which programs were
to be implemented were also left unclear
(Crawford, 2004). In this regard, it is
necessary to build a theory establishing
clear minimum requisites to implement
a solid bilingual program and disseminate it. In many of the states where antibilingual propositions have triumphed,
parents found it hard to define what a
bilingual program actually consists of,
how it could be implemented, and how
to differentiate it from other approaches (Del Valle, 2003; Capetillo-Ponce &
Kramer, 2006). This recommendation
is consistent with Wright and Choi’s
(2006) argument that
for any instructional model to be
successful and for any kind of instruction to be effective, there
needs to be: (a) clear guidelines on
what the model is (and what it is
not), (b) an established curriculum
and accompanying curricular materials, (c) training in the proper
implementation of the model and
instructional use of the curriculum
and materials, and (d) support for
this model and curriculum at the
school and district level. (p. 40)
Both schools and families would benefit from the information about quality
language instructional programs and
potential alternatives. This point would
also satisfy those who claim that families have a right to choose how their
children should be educated. Of course,
families should have the possibility of
exercising genuine choice based on
sound knowledge and solid data and
not on others’ ideological motivations.
Questions of power, race, and ethnicity need to be brought up in the debate and made explicit. Only explicit
references to such questions will help
problematize assumptions about language such as (1) the validity of competence in English as an indicator of
national loyalty; (2) the presumed
neutrality of Standard English; and
(3) the sufficiency of willpower for its
mastery (McGroarty, 2002). Strategies
to defend bilingual education have to
be reconsidered, and cases like California, Arizona, and Massachusetts need
to be scrutinized to extract important
lessons. If issues that are beyond mere
educational research make an essential part of the debate about education
programs, such questions need to be
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 68
tackled no matter how uncomfortable
they are. The inherent racist and oppressive discourses behind the anti-bilingual education argument need to be
explicitly exposed and denounced. In
such an open debate lies a real opportunity. McGroarty (2002) asserts that
Americans strongly value both greater
acceptance of pluralism and greater
emphasis on choice and individualism
as expressive of an individual’s uniqueness. These concepts are at the core of
the divergence between democracratic
and meritocratic principles. Bilingual
education can certainly be presented as
a balancing force between them.
Language rights need to be demystified and the theory of the ‘additional
privilege’ deconstructed. Language
rights are not an ‘extra-advantage’ but
the factor that helps adjust an uneven
playing field. In this regard, it becomes
essential to stress the positive effects
of language rights in reducing the potential for linguistic and social conflict.
Language is a powerful force for mobilizing public opinion to affect not only
language policy, but also broad issues
of state formation, politics, and administration. Establishing “a system of
language rights can protect all citizens
from leaders who wish to use language
for destructive and unscrupulous aims”
(Tollefson, 2002c, p.331).
In order to bring these issues to the
table, it will be necessary to count on
the expectations and actions of politicians and school districts. Politicians
want to offer a quick solution to learn
English, which is the reason why sheltered English immersion programs,
like the one implemented in Massachusetts, place students in mainstream
classes in just one year. Bilingual education advocates need to spearhead
and organize a grassroots movement
with the intention of propagating the
multiple benefits of bilingual education and its effects on creating a more
respectful and inclusive school climate.
The advantages of bilingual education are not limited to newcomers. All
students could be able to attain proficiency in two languages in the same
manner as affluent students enrolled in
prestigious bilingual programs (Berriz,
2005). Indeed, the implementation of
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
bilingual education would represent a
qualitative jump in the pursuit of equal
opportunity and real integration. In
order to do so, teachers, parents, and
community organizations need to play
a fundamental role in the movement to
push reforms that bring bilingual education back to the forefront of education for democracy.
Unfortunately, until these assumptions and attitudes are challenged, the
debate about bilingual education will
linger in a dead end street. The main
focus will be obscured with questions
of American loyalty and assimilation,
without taking into account the betterment of democratic institutions
and the role of education as “the great
equalizer.” The real conditions of millions of students in our classrooms
will remain purposefully ignored, and,
what it is worse, they will be blatantly
blamed for their low achievement in
society. In the end, it also seems obvious to argue that any and all education
reforms should be intended to benefit
every student in every school. With that
approach in mind, politicians, school
administrators, teachers, parents, and
the community at large should have
access to empirical findings that point
to strategies that improve not only students’ English proficiency but also their
chances of developing their academic
potential to the fullest. It is essential
to spell out, as James Crawford (2004)
asserts, “there is no contradiction between promoting fluent bilingualism
and promoting academic achievement
in English; indeed, these goals are mutually supporting” (p. xv).
David Nieto is a doctoral candidate
in the John W. McCormack Graduate
School of Policy Studies at UMass-Boston. He has a background in Applied
Linguistics, and his main research interests are Language and Education
Policy, Language Rights, and Immigration.
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 69
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 70
REFERENCES
Baker, K. & de Kanter, A.A. (1981). Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of literature.
Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation.
Washington DC: U.S.
Baker, K. & de Kanter, A.A. (1983). Bilingual Education: A reappraisal of federal policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.
Baker, K. (1998). “Structured English Immersion: Breakthrough in Teaching Limited-English-Proficient Students.” In: Phi
Delta Kappan. 80 (3), pp. 199-204.
Bangura, A. K., & Muo, M. C. (2001). United States Congress and Bilingual Education. New York: Peter Lang.
Bartolomé, L. (2008). Understanding Policy for Equity in Teaching and Learning: A critical Historical Lens. Language
Arts, 85 (5), May 2008, pp. 376-381.
Berriz, B.R. (2005). “Unz Got Your Tongue: What Have We Lost with the English-Only Mandates?” Radical Teacher, 75,
Winter 2005, pp. 10-15.
Brisk, M.E. (1998). Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Buchanan, P.J. (2006). State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. NY: Thomas Dunne
Books.
Capetillo-Ponce, J. & Kramer, R. (2006). Politics, Ethnicity, and Bilingual Education in Massachusetts: The case of Referendum Question 2. In Torres, A. (ed.) (2006). Latinos in New England. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
Cardasco, F. (1976). Bilingual Schooling in the United States: A Sourcebook for Education Personnel. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice. Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational
Services, Inc.
Crawford, J. (1998). Anatomy of the English-Only Movement: Social and Ideological Sources of Language Restrictionism
in the United States. In: Kibbee, D.A. (Ed.) 1998. Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights. Selected Proceedings
of the Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights Conference, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
March 1996. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Crawford, J. (2001) Bilingual education in the United States: Politics vs Pedagogy, paper presented at I Jornadas Internacionales de Educación Plurilingüe, Ayuntamiento Victoria-Gasteiz, Pais Vasco, Spain, Nov. 2001. Retrieved on July
12, 2008 from: http://www.elladvocates.org/documents/RCN/vitoria.htm
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: language diversity in the classroom. Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
De los Reyes, E., Nieto, D., Diez, V. (2008). “If Our Students Fail, We Fail. If They Succeed, We Succeed: Case Studies of
Boston Schools Where Latino Students Succeed.” Boston: Mauricio Gastón Institute. Retrieved December 05, 2008
from: http://www.gaston.umb.edu/articles/delosreyes_2008_Boston_Casestudies.pdf
Del Valle, S. (2003). Language Rights and the Law in the United States: Finding Our Voices. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Facella, M.A. Rampino, K.M. & Shea, E.K. (Spring 2005). Effective Teaching Strategies for English Language Learners.
Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 1, p. 209-221.
Fix, M. & Passel, J.S. (2003). U.S. Immigration: Trends and Implications for Schools. Presentation for the National Association for Bilingual Education, NCLB Implementation Institute. New Orleans, LA, January 2003. Retrieved on July
12, 2008 from: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410654_NABEPresentation.pdf
Genesee, F. (Editor). (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students, Washintong DC: US Department of
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 71
Education, Center for research on education, diversity and excellence.
Genesse, F., Lindolm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English Language Learners in U.S. Schools: An
Overview of Research. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385.
Giroux, H. (2001). English Only and the Crisis of Memory, Culture, and Democracy. In: Gonzalez Duenas, R. (Ed.) (2001).
Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement. Volume 2: History, Theory, and
Policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Greene, J.P. (1998). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y.G., and Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take for English learners to attain proficiency? Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Haugen, E. (1972). The Ecology of Languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Huntington, S. (2004). “The Hispanic Challenge”. Foreign Policy. March-April 2004, pp. 1-16.
Krashen, S. (1996). Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education. Culver City, Calif.: Language Education Associates.
Macedo, D. (2000). The Colonialism of the English Only Movement. Educational researcher, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 15-24.
Markey, C. F. (2008) “The Controversy Over Question 2 and Ending Bilingual Education in Massachusetts: The Public
Discourse, Why It Passed, and What We Can Learn From It” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MPSA Annual National Conference, Palmer House Hotel, Hilton, Chicago, Retrieved July 12, 2008 from: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p266481_index.html
Martínez, G.A. (2007). Immigration and the Meaning of United States Citizenship: Whiteness and Assimilation. Washburn Law Journal, April 2007, Vol. 46, pp. 335-344.
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2002). Question 2. English Language Education in Public Schools.
Retrieved December 5, 2008 from: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele02/elebq02/bq02full.htm#q2anc
McCarty, T.L. (2002). Between possibility and constraint: Indigenous language education, planning, and policy in the US.
In: Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.) (2002). Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
McGroarty, K. (2002). Evolving influences on educational language policies. In: Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.) (2002). Language
Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The socio-political context of multicultural education. In Fraser, J. (Ed.) (2000). The
School in the United State: A documentary History. Boston: McGraw-Hill
Padilla, A., Lindholm, K., Chen, A., Durán, R., Hakuta, K., Lambert, W., and Tucker, R. (February 1991). The English-Only
movement: Myths, Reality, and implications for Psychology. American Psychologist. Vol. 46 (2), pp. 120-130. American Psychological Association.
Perez, B. (2004). Becoming Biliterate: A Study of Two-Way Bilingual Immersion Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pray, L.C., and MacSwan, J. (2002). Different question, same answer: How long does it take for English learners to
acquire proficiency? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, April 4.
Ricento, T. (1998). The Courts, The Legislature, and Society: The Shaping of Federal Language Policy in the United States.
In: Kibbee, D.A. (Ed.) 1998. Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights. Selected Proceedings of the Language
Legislation and Linguistic Rights Conference, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 1996. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Rivera, L. (2002). Latinos in Massachusetts: Education. Boston: Mauricio Gastón Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2008 from:
http://www.gaston.umb.edu/articles/atinos_%20ma_lit_review.pdf
PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN EDUCATION
SPRING 2009 | PAGE 72
Roosevelt, T. (1926). Works (Memorial Ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Schmid, C.L. (2001). The Politics of Language: Conflict, Identity, and Cultural Pluralism in Comparative Perspective.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2000). Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research of reading instruction for English language learners, Review of
Educational Research 75(2): 247-284.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suárez-Orozco, M. & Páez, M. (Eds.) (2002). Latinos. Remaking America. Cambridge,
�������������������������������������������
MA and Berkeley, CA: David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University and University of California Press.
The Boston Globe. (Feb. 6, 2009). “Hispanic males rank lowest for Mass. High school graduation rates.” Retrieved from:
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/mcas/articles/2009/02/06/graduation_rate_lowest_for_hispanic_
male_students/
Tollefson, J. W. (2002a). Introduction: Critical Issues in Educational Language Policy. In: Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.) (2002).
Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tollefson, J. W. (2002b). Language Rights and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. In: Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.) (2002). Language
Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tollefson, J. W. (2002c). Conclusion: Looking Outward. In: Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.) (2002). Language Policies in Education:
Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Urban, W. & Wagoner, J. (2003). American Education: A History. Boston: McGraw-Hill
Uriarte, M. & Chavez, L. (2000). Latino
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Students and the Massachusetts Public Schools. ������������������������������
Boston: Mauricio Gastón Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2008 from: http://www.gaston.umb.edu/articles/uriarte%20chavez%20edreport%202000.
pdf
Wiley, T. (1998). What Happens After English is Declared the Official Language of the United States? In: Kibbee, D.A.
(Ed.) 1998. Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights. Selected Proceedings of the Language Legislation and
Linguistic Rights Conference, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 1996. Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins Publishing Co.
Wiley, T. (2002). Accessing Language Rights in Education: A brief history on the U.S. context. In: Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.)
(2002). Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wiley, T. G. & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: The politics of language instruction in the United States. Educational Policy, 18(1), pp. 142–168.
Wright, W. E. (2005). English Language Learners Left Behind in Arizona: The Nullification of Accommodations in the Intersection of Federal and State Language and Assessment Policies. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 1-30. Retrieved
from: http://brj.asu.edu/content/vol29_no1/art1.pdf
Wright, W. E. & Choi, D. (2006). The Impact of Language and High-Stakes Testing Policies on Elementary School English Language Learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13). Retrieved from: http://epaa.asu.edu/
epaa/v14n13/
Penn GSE Perspectives On Urban Education
www.urbanedjournal.org
Published by the University of Pennsylvania
Graduate School of Education
3700 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Copyright © 2009
138
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
Indigenous Language Immersion Schools for Strong Indigenous Identities
Jon Reyhner, Northern Arizona University
Abstract
Drawing on evidence from indigenous language immersion programs in the United States, this
article makes the case that these immersion programs are vital to healing the negative effects of
colonialism and assimilationist schooling that have disrupted many indigenous homes and
communities. It describes how these programs are furthering efforts to decolonize indigenous
education and helping further United Nations policies supporting the rights of indigenous
peoples. The fit between place-, community-, and culture-based education and immersion
language programs is described with examples from Apache, Ojibwe, Diné (Navajo), Hawaiian,
and Blackfeet language programs, illustrating how traditional indigenous values are infused into
language programs to help build strong positive identities in indigenous students and their
communities.
Introduction
International support for decolonization and the rights of indigenous peoples was formalized on
September 13, 2007 when the United Nations (UN) adopted the Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples by a vote of 143 to 4, with only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and The
United States in opposition (Declaration, 2007). Article 2 of this declaration affirms, “Indigenous
peoples have the right of self-determination.” Other articles declare more specific rights; for
example, “the right not to be subject to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”
(Article 8); “the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories,
languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and
retain their own names for communities, places and persons” (Article 13); and “the right to
establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own
languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning” (Article
14).
In keeping with the 2007 Declaration, the UN‟s General Assembly made 2008 the “International
Year of Languages.” UNESCO Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura (2008) stated, “Languages
are indeed essential to the identity of groups and individuals and to their peaceful coexistence.
They constitute a strategic factor of progress towards sustainable development and a harmonious
relationship between the global and local context.” He further noted that the ninth International
Mother Language Day (February 21, 2008) would “have a special significance and provide a
particularly appropriate deadline for the introduction of initiatives to promote languages.”
These recent UN initiatives build on the UN‟s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which states in that “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given
to their children” (Universal Declaration, 1948, Article 26) and the 1992 Declaration on the
Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, which
declares that “States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and
139
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions
for the promotion of that identity” (Declaration, 2007, Article 1). Article 2 (Declaration) affirms
that “Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities…have the right
to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, and to use their own
language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of
discrimination.” The following year was declared by the UN to be the “International Year of the
World‟s Indigenous People.”
However, the international support that UN declarations appear to signal often does not extend
beyond rhetoric. Skunabb-Kangas (2000, p. 492) finds that “many governments
applaud…human rights, as long as they can define them in their own way, according to their own
cultural norms.” She notes that the United States in particular had only ratified 15 of 52 universal
human rights instruments as of 1998; on a list of ratifying countries, led by Norway with 46
ratifications, the U.S. is in the same place with Somalia and is just below Saudi Arabia (see also
Reyhner, 2008).
Despite the U.S. government‟s failure to support U.N. declarations supporting the rights of
indigenous peoples, efforts restoring indigenous values and language are ongoing among
American Indian activists, who are focusing on decolonizing Indian education (Grande, 2004).
The goal of these efforts is to heal the historical wounds suffered by colonized peoples and to
help them move beyond a mentality of victimization. Native language immersion schools have
become a key part of the post-colonial healing process that aims to restore and strengthen Native
families and communities. These programs seek to redress the abuse of indigenous languages
historically carried out by assimilationist schooling while using the power of the language to
convey tribal values. A key feature of indigenous immersion programs is that they are voluntary,
allowing parents who choose to enroll their children in them to exercise a basic human right
upheld by the United Nations‟ initiatives and declarations on indigenous peoples. This paper
examines evidence from several programs in the U.S. to understand their role in healing the
negative effects of colonialism that have disrupted many indigenous homes and communities.
Assimilation and its Effects
For most of the history of the United States, the basic human rights delineated by the UN in 1948
and 1992 have been denied to ethnic minorities; in fact, it was government policy to assimilate
them into the dominant English-speaking population through schools in which their native
languages and cultures were suppressed. Schools were used to eliminate indigenous languages
by punishing students who spoke them and indoctrinating them into the superiority of English as
compared to their “barbarous dialects” and into Christianity compared to their “barbarous
beliefs” (Adams, 1995; Reyhner & Eder, 2004).
Starting with the 1928 Meriam Report (Institute, 1928), an independent comprehensive study of
the U.S. Indian Office by the Brookings Institute for Government Research at John Hopkins
University, studies have shown the harm this assimilationist language policy has done to
indigenous students and their academic achievement, which has lagged far behind U.S. national
averages.
140
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
The National Center for Education Statistics‟ report, Status and Trends in the Education of
American Indians and Alaska Natives (Freeman & Fox, 2005), found indigenous students with
more than twice the White dropout rate, the highest death rate of 15-19 year olds, the highest
percentage of special education students, and the highest absenteeism. These students are also
the most likely to have failed to complete core academic programs in their schools, and the most
affected by school violence. These grim statistics are tinged with irony given that the U.S.
government‟s past English-only policy in schools has been so successful that 51% of American
Indian and Alaska Native eighth graders reported in 2003 never speaking any language but
English at home and only 22% reported speaking a non-English language half the time or more
(Freeman & Fox, 2005).
The problems of modern Indians extend beyond the classroom walls. Unemployment among
Native people is three times the national average (Freeman & Fox, 2005). Gang activity is
prevalent and incarceration rates are high. This social and economic plight is a direct result of the
destruction of American Indian families and communities brought about by assimilationist
policies, including those implemented in schools.
When an Ojibwe (aka Anishenabe or Chippewa) high school student shot and killed a teacher
and seven students in 2005, Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley (2005) expressed a belief that
poverty and the breakdown of traditional tribal culture contributed to the conditions that made
tragedy this kind of tragedy possible. He wrote:
We are all terribly saddened by the news about our relatives on their land in
Red Lake in Minnesota. Unfortunately, the sad truth is, I believe, these kinds
of incidents are evidence of natives losing their cultural and traditional ways
that have sustained us as a people for centuries.
Respect for our elders is a teaching shared by all native people …. When there
was a problem, we would ask, “What does Grandpa say? What does Grandma
say?”
….
Even on the big Navajo Nation, we, as a people, are not immune to losing sight
of our values and ways. Each day we see evidence of the chipping away of
Navajo culture, language and traditions by so many outside forces. (p. 5)
Joy Harjo, a member of the Muscogee Creek tribe, sums up the result of this systematic
dismantling of culture and the linguistic means of transmitting it: “Colonization teaches us to
hate ourselves. We are told that we are nothing until we adopt the ways of the colonizer, until we
become the colonizer” (as quoted in Mankiller, 2004, p. 62). This is a tragic legacy of
assimilationist policy.
141
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
Language, School and Assimilation
Efforts at revitalizing indigenous languages in schools have to overcome the deep suspicion that
some Indigenous people harbor towards schools, which as mentioned earlier, were colonial
instruments used to eradicate Native languages and to assimilate Indians into the dominant North
American culture (Adams, 1995; Reyhner & Eder, 2004).
Whether government- or missionary-run, the goal of schools was to replace indigenous
community and family values with a new set of ideals. While government-sponsored institutions
saw education and suppression of the native language as a means of assimilation, religiously
affiliated schools viewed the imposition of English as a means of conversion to Christianity.
Conversion and assimilation tore tribal communities and families apart as some members hung
on to cherished traditions, whereas others rejected those traditions as outdated, the work of the
devil, and/or “savage.”
In her 1999 autobiography The Scalpel and the Silver Bear, Lori Arviso Alvord, the first Navajo
woman surgeon, described her grandmother‟s and father‟s schooling, during which they were
punished for speaking Navajo and “told by white educators that, in order to be successful, they
would have to forget their language and culture and adopt American ways” (Alvord & Van Pelt,
1999, p. 86). She concluded “two or three generations of our tribe had been taught to feel shame
about our culture, and parents had often not taught their children traditional Navajo beliefs--the
very thing that would have shown them how to live, the very thing that could keep them strong”
(Alvord & Van Pelt, 1999, p. 88).
Platero (1975) the first director of the Navajo Division of Education, reports the deleterious
effects of a similar language policy on a Navajo student, “Kee”:
Kee was sent to boarding school as a child where--as was the practice--he was
punished for speaking Navajo. Since he was only allowed to return home
during Christmas and summer, he lost contact with his family. Kee withdrew
from both the White and Navajo worlds as he grew older because he could not
comfortably communicate in either language. He became one of the many
thousand Navajos who were non-lingual--a man without a language. By the
time he was 16, Kee was an alcoholic, uneducated, and despondent--without
identity. (p. 58)
Platero concludes by emphasizing the need to use the Navajo language more in teaching Navajo
students.
Speaking at the U.S. Office of Indian Education‟s Language and Culture Preservation
Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 2004, former Menominee Tribal Chairperson
Apesanahkwat recalled that in Catholic school, the nuns, in effect, told their students “to throw
stones at the elders.” He opined that Indians today “have tasted cherry pie [the good things of
modern America] and we like it.” However, Indians today are “like fish lying on the beach… we
need to be in that water” of their culture. Apesanahkwat, like Arviso and Holm (2001), Platero
142
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
and others, argues that indigenous cultures are inextricably intertwined with the survival of the
people, and that when those cultures suffer attack, the survival of the people is jeopardized.
Support for the Revitalization of Indigenous Languages
Many American Indian leaders have expressed their support for their indigenous languages. At
the 2005 annual meeting of the National Indian Education Association, Cecelia Fire Thunder,
President of the Oglala Sioux at Pine Ridge, testified, “I speak English well because I spoke
Lakota well…. Our languages are value based. Everything I need to know is in our language.”
She declared that language is more than communication: “It‟s about bringing back our values
and good things about how to treat each other.” Sisseton Wahpeton tribal college president Dr.
William Harjo LoneFight declares, “When people spoke Dakota, they understood where they
belonged in relation to other people, the natural world, and to the spiritual world. They truly
knew how to treat one another” (as quoted in Ambler, 2004, p. 8).
Midgette (1997) recounts her experience: “I have heard several Native Americans speak feeling
about their sense of rootlessness and despair, and how they recovered when their grandmothers
taught them to speak Tolowa, or Navajo, and they regained a sense of themselves and their
heritage” (p. 39). Interviewing Navajo elders Yazzie (1995) found that “Elder Navajos want to
pass on their knowledge and wisdom to the younger generation. Originally, this was the older
people‟s responsibility. Today the younger generation does not know the language and is unable
to accept the words of wisdom” (p. 3). An elder told her that television had taken the Navajo
language away from children. Midgette values language similarly: “The use of the native tongue
is like therapy, specific native words express love and caring. Knowing the language presents
one with a strong self-identity, a culture with which to identify, and a sense of wellness” (p. 3).
As indigenous children learn English or other “National” languages and cultures through the
media and in schools, they increasingly become separated from their heritage, and some cannot
speak to their grandparents. One of Yazzie‟s informants told her, “Older people who speak only
Navajo are alone” (Yazzie, 1995, p. 4). Many American Indians see language as the key to their
identity, and they question whether one can be Cherokee, Navajo, Crow, Seminole, and so forth
without speaking their tribal language.
Littlebear (1999), a North Cheyenne educator, concluded,
Our youth are apparently looking to urban gangs for those things that will give
them a sense of identity, importance, and belongingness. It would be so nice if
they would but look to our own tribal characteristics because we already have
all the things that our youth are apparently looking for and finding in socially
destructive gangs…. [A] characteristic that really makes a gang distinctive is
the language they speak. If we could transfer the young people‟s loyalty back
to our own tribes and families, we could restore the frayed social fabric of our
reservations. We need to make our children see our languages and cultures as
viable and just as valuable as anything they see on television, movies, or
videos (pp. 4-5).
143
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
The Focus of Immersion Programs – Restoration of Traditional Values or Preparation for the
Larger Society?
Educational reformers advocate immersion programs which would teach subject matter in the
native language. It is not enough, however, to simply introduce the native language if a school‟s
curriculum remains unchanged (Nevins, 2004). Just translating a non-Native curriculum into the
Native language and focusing on vocabulary and grammar is in no way part of a decolonization
agenda. In fact, it could be viewed as nothing more than a new way to approach colonization. On
the other hand, if the non-Native curriculum is ignored as language revitalization programs are
implemented, students will be denied access to the skills needed to negotiate the larger society
and participate in the modern economy. In addition, reversing the longstanding assimilationist
policy may engender confusion and deep suspicion among Native peoples who accommodated to
the pressures they faced by assimilating into the dominant culture, for example by converting to
Christianity. Some Christian Natives may worry that language revitalization programs are
attempting to bring back Native religions (see e.g., Yazzie, 2003).1
Some educators, however, are uncomfortable with the premise that curriculum can be balanced
so that students “can live in two worlds.” LaDonna Harris (a member of the Comanche tribe)
remarks, “It drives me crazy when people say we have to live in two worlds. We can‟t live in
two worlds. We have to live in one world and carry those values with us and live them every day
wherever we live. People become dysfunctional when they adopt situational values” (as quoted
in Mankiller, 2004, p. 68-69). Oglala Sioux educator Dr. Sandra Fox also dislikes “the „walk in
two worlds‟ idea; the time you should be most Indian is in the white world” (as quoted in
Reyhner, 2006c). Like Harris, Fox wishes to foster traditional tribal values, which usually
include cooperation, generosity, reciprocity, respect, and humility, and emphasize our
relatedness to all things and the need for balance and harmony. In her view, these cultural values
cannot be taught just as a thing of the past as children are growing up in and must live in the
present.
Calsoyas‟ (1992) interview of Navajo elder and medicine man Thomas Walker reveals similar
concerns about the values fostered in non-Navajo education.
For over one hundred years the white man has defined what education will be
for the Navajo people…. I was brought up with the old philosophy and what I
see now with the White Men‟s way in today‟s world there is a wide difference
and the intent of education does not relate any more. Because of this, in this
present time, the children that are taught whatever is real, the old philosophy
does not touch. The old language does not touch on these things. The children
are given too much power. Whenever you try to correct a child from
wrongdoings it becomes difficult to discipline them because of the laws that
have been developed to protect children from abuse. When one is trying to
discipline a child they say that they are being called names and are being
abused. When you try to tell them something and you touch them, they report
they were hit. Because of this law that protects them many are wandering and
doing whatever they feel like. Because of this others act as if they are the
144
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
authorities on everything. Because of this, the school administrators are getting
in trouble to the point that they lose their jobs. I do not agree with this. (p. 168)
Place-, Community-, Culture-based Education
A successful Native language revitalization program must address the questions raised in the
preceding section regarding what will be taught using the medium of the Native language. In
schools, will the program reflect the standard school curriculum or will it be indigenized and
contextualized to reflect a particular Native community? As Wayne Holm (2006), former
director of the Navajo-English bilingual Rock Point Community School, noted, “If school is to
be relevant, it has to deal with the realities of the land, the animals, and the people” (p. 2). While
such an education can be done largely in English, as Bingham and Bingham‟s (1982/1994) work
shows, it makes sense to teach these same concepts in the Native language as well.
Deloria and Wildcat (2001) outline a rationale and framework for indigenous language
revitalization programs. In the preface to their book, Wildcat proposes “an indigenization of our
educational system” (p. vii), something that can be accomplished by clearly understanding what
is distinctive about Native American society and values. Deloria (1994) contrasts the “Native
American sacred view” with the “material and pragmatic focus of the larger American society”
(p. v), and draws a distinction between a “unified” Indian worldview where everything is related
versus a “disjointed sterile and emotionless world painted by Western science” (p. 2).
As a way of emphasizing an interconnectedness with our environment and our relationship to the
world, Deloria and Wildcat (2001) advocate both experiential learning involving example and
observation and a focus on the importance of reciprocity and giving back. Both educational
approaches not only reflect Native American world views, but are deeply embedded in tribal
values. Deloria (Deloria & Wildcat, 2001) notes that “human personality was derived from
accepting the responsibility to be a contributing member of a society” (p. 44) and that “education
was something for the tribe, not for the individual” (p. 84).
In presenting their framework for indigenizing education, Deloria and Wildcat (2001) are
addressing problems associated with non-native education and societal values. Wildcat describes
the United States “as a nation of homeless people” who have places to live but don't know their
neighbors (p. 67). Deloria (Deloria & Wildcat, 2001) characterizes the American worldview as
one “that separates and isolates and mistakes labeling and identification for knowledge” (p. 133).
Instead of just learning skills and facts, students in indigenous schools should develop a positive
identity that includes having a sense of place both physically and socially; in fact, as Wildcat
points out, the word “indigenous” means to be of a place (p. 31).
Even though Wildcat maintains that “there are good reasons for American Indian students not to
discard knowledge traditionally held by their tribes, he also calls on them not to “romanticize the
past” (p. 8). While children need to respect their elders, they also need to learn from the failures
of elders as well as their successes. Children are to be educated to “find home in the landscapes
and ecologies they inhabit” (p. 71). Fox‟s (2001, 2001a, 2001b) focus on curriculum is similar to
Deloria and Wildcat‟s (2001).
145
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
Some Revitalization Efforts
The following section discusses several examples of indigenous language revitalization programs
and the cultural and values goals and educational philosophy that drive them.
Common to these programs is the combined focus on language teaching and Native values. For
example, Wilkins (2008) gives an account of her school district‟s work, with the help of an elder,
to put together a values curriculum based on her Yakama Nation‟s values of honesty,
compassion, caution, courage, taking care, respect, thoughtfulness, humility, and service. Lipka,
Mohatt, and the Ciulistet Group‟s (1998) study of Alaska Native education pointed out that
Yup‟ik teachers rejected the profuse “bubbly” praise promoted by outside [non-Native] teachers
because traditional Yup‟iks believed “overly praising will ruin a person” (p. 126).
Nevins‟ (2004) study of an Apache language maintenance program showed that “awareness and
participation in activities sustaining of family life” was viewed by the community as “central to
knowing the Apache language” (p. 280). “Knowing how to speak Apache is an index of the
child‟s involvement in the intimate moral universe of family life” and “language loss is therefore
interpreted as an indication of problems within the family” (p. 282). Nevins notes that “Apache
family-centered pedagogy teaches language by cultivating a child‟s awareness of the social
world in which speaking is possible” (p. 278). The community wanted the Apache language
program to strengthen families. Because the language program Nevins studied failed to focus on
what the community saw as important, the tribal government ended it.
An Ojibwe language maintenance program was created to address not only language loss, but the
social problems linked with it. An Ojibwe band saw the decline in the use of their language as
correlating “with a loss of Ojibwe traditions, the unraveling of the extended family, depression
among Band members, high dropout rates among Ojibwe students, and an increasing amount of
gang activity among youth” (Bowen, 2004, p. 4). An Ojibwe Commissioner of Education argued
that “By teaching the language we are building a foundation for a lifetime of productive
citizenship…. Ojibwe values are inextricably linked to the language. These values, such as
caring for the environment, healing the body and mind together, and treating all creation with
respect are taught most effectively when they are taught in Ojibwe” (as quoted in Bowen, 2004,
p. 4). The Ojibwe Advisory Board “firmly believed that writing Ojibwe was not as important as
speaking it” (p. 8). They wanted two fluent speakers in each classroom so conversation could be
modeled for learners. They have also incorporated Ojibwe music into classroom instruction.
Similarly, there are several Navajo examples of culture-based American Indian education
implemented as part of the healing efforts to restore traditional family values. These programs
show that the “either-or” idea that one either restores traditional values or assimilates into the
non-Indian dominant society in order to achieve academic and economic success is a false
dichotomy. In the 1970s, the all-Navajo Rock Point Community School Board called for
teaching Navajo behavior in the classroom, concluding “that it was the breakdown of a working
knowledge of Navajo kinship that caused much of what they perceived as inappropriate, unNavajo, behavior” (Holm & Holm, 1990, p. 178). To counteract this breakdown, the Rock Point
School Board established a Navajo-English bilingual program in their school that emphasized
146
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
Navajo Social Studies and the Navajo beliefs about kinship. For the Navajo and other tribes,
kinship through family and clans establishes rules for interacting in a respectful manner. And this
interaction is reflected in the language itself. In addition to the Navajo social studies component
of the immersion curriculum, a hands-on approach to math and science using manipulatives and
experiments allowed students to understand and talk about what they were learning (see e.g.,
Reyhner, 1990). Studies of this program found that the Navajo immersion students showed more
Navajo adult-like, responsible behavior than the Navajo students not in the immersion classes
(Arviso & Holm, 2001; Holm & Holm, 1995).
The Rock Point bilingual program was modified and transported to the Window Rock Public
School. The Window Rock Navajo immersion program started in 1986. The 200 students in the
program, most of whom are English dominant, are immersed in Navajo during kindergarten and
first grade with curriculum based on the Navajo Nation‟s Diné cultural content standards as well
as Arizona State academic standards. English instruction is gradually introduced, usually
beginning in second grade, as the students‟ Navajo proficiency develops further. By sixth grade,
half of students‟ instruction is in English (Johnson & Wilson, 2005). Besides the improvement
in student behavior reported, the immersion students showed higher English-language test scores
than the non-immersion students in the same school district (Johnson & Wilson, 2005; Johnson
& Legatz, 2006). Johnson and Wilson‟s (2005) table summarizing what was learned from
implementing the Window Rock immersion includes benefits such as improved student and
teacher retention as well as family participation in working towards outcomes, and validation of
student identity (p. 31).
Manuelito and McLaughlin (as cited in Reyhner, 2006b) noted in their observation of Window
Rock‟s Navajo immersion program that, “Navajo values are embedded in the classroom.” A
parent whom they interviewed noticed differences between students who were in the immersion
program and those who were not:
[The immersion students] seem more disciplined and have a lot more respect
for older [people], well anyone, like teachers. They communicate better with
their grandparents, their uncles…. [It] makes them more mature and more
respectful. I see other kids and they just run around crazy.
(pp. 79-80)
The Navajo Nation‟s Education Committee‟s Diné Cultural Content Standards (Office of Diné
Culture, 2000) states in its preface, “The Diné Cultural Content Standards is predicated on the
belief that firm grounding of native students in their indigenous cultural heritage and language is
a fundamentally sound prerequisite to well developed and culturally healthy students” (p. v). The
empowering values of the Diné individual to be taught include being “generous and kind,”
“respecting kinship,” “being a careful listener,” and “having a balanced perspective and mind” as
well as not being lazy, impatient, hesitant, easily hurt, shy, or mad. Diné individuals are to
respect the sacred, have self-discipline, and prepare for challenges (p. 80).
147
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
In the keynote address on March 9, 2004 at the U.S. Office of Indian Education Program‟s Third
Symposium on Language and Culture Preservation, the theme of which was “Journeying Home:
Creating Our Future From Our Past,” Navajo elder and statesman Jack Jackson summed up the
goal of values based Dine language programs. He noted that, at Diné College, the Navajo
Nation‟s tribal college, they are “in a search to create our future based on our past.” He
emphasized the importance of teaching Navajos the Navajo philosophy of “Ké,” of being a
balanced person. This involves examining beauty before oneself, beauty behind oneself, beauty
underneath, beauty above, and beauty around, with the goal of becoming a balanced person who
walks in beauty.
Native Hawaiians have also been very active in seeking to restore their traditional values through
language immersion programs. Aha Pūnana Leo (2006), which since 1983 has established
schools throughout the Hawaiian islands, is built around re-establishing the Hawaiian philosophy
of life.
From its start with Hawaiian preschools in the 1980s, Hawaiian language immersion classrooms
were extended into successively higher grades until the first five K-12 immersion students
graduated from high school in 1999. Students, most of whom are English speakers, they are
immersed in Hawaiian from kindergarten to grade five with some English introduced after grade
five. In a case study of a new immersion teacher at a Hawaiian immersion school, Keiki
Kawaiʻaeʻa and Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley observed the interaction between approaches to
teaching and the values being transmitted:
At the Hawaiian immersion school, the day began and ended with traditional
Hawaiian protocol—a Hawaiian chant, a positive thought, and a prayer to open
and close the day. Included in the morning protocol was the formal request
chant and reply in Hawaiian to enter the school. This opening protocol set the
mood for the day by helping all to focus and reflect on the task of learning,
teaching and leading with good thoughts, intentions and feelings, and a
cooperative spirit. The school day ended with a chant to attune them to another
realm, that of home, family, friends, and place with all its different
idiosyncrasies. The well-being of the whole group through active participation
at the piko (a spiritual gathering place) was a part of the healing, health and
lifelong learning daily experiences for the total learning community—students,
teachers, support staff, families and guests. (as quoted in Reyhner, 2006d, p.
78)
The researchers noted the pivotal role that the Hawaiian language played in the school‟s cultural
education program:
The language best expresses the thought world of the ancestors and thrusts
them into the Hawaiian worldview. This is the language of connectedness,
relatedness and respect. The language provides the cultural sustenance and the
lens from which the dynamics of the school community has evolved. The
148
Heritage Language Journal, 7(2)
Fall, 2010
language is formed by the landscape with its soundscape and therefore,
conducive to living in concert with Nature. … The language shapes and
nurtures the school learning community as a complete and whole entity.
(Kawaiʻaeʻa & Kawagley, 2006)
With the help of elders, seven guiding values for Hawaiian educational success, were developed
to express essential values: value of place, applied achievement, cultural perspective, cultural
identity, intellect, personal identity, and relationships.
On a smaller scale, the Cuts Wood School in the Blackfeet Nation, Montana (2010) immerses its
students in their Blackfeet language both as a goal in itself and a means of transmitting cultural
values. According to Kipp (2009) the school has found content that is taught in Blackfeet
becomes part of English knowledge as well. In addition to academics and language, values are
also emphasized. The Cuts Wood School avoids competition, “a form of violence,” (p. 5) as well
as hierarchal concepts, ranking, and punitive designations.
Conclusion
One of the goals set by the U.S. Secretary of Education‟s Indian Nations at Risk Task Force‟s
report (Indian Nations at Risk Task Force, 1991) was that “By the year 2000 all schools will
offer Native students the opportunity to maintain and develop their tribal languages and will
create a multicultural environment that enhances the many cultures represented in the school” (p.
i). (This goal is still far from fruition despite the work of immersion schools outlined in this
article).
While academic knowledge and test scores are important, it is students‟ behavior towards others
that is of paramount importance because it is a determinant of how individuals use the
knowledge they have gained. Students of whatever race or culture who are disconnected from
their traditional values are likely in modern America to pick up unhealthy values of
consumerism, consumption, competition, comparison and conformity from the barrage of
popular culture transmitted by television, movies and the Internet. In 1998, the National
Research Council reported that immigrant youth tend to be healthier than their counterparts from
nonimmigrant families. It found that the lon...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment