Discussion question

User Generated

znohxunz

Humanities

Description

Read the week 14 readings on bilingual and immersion education, and in a 300 word posting discuss the pros and cons of bilingual and immersion education. Do you have any personal experience with bilingual education? based on the attached re

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Thanks a lot. Am looking forward to work with you.

Running Head: BILINGUAL AND IMMERSION EDUCATION

Bilingual and Immersion Education
Institution Affiliation
Instructor S Name
Student S Name
Course Title
Unit Code
Date

1

BILINGUAL AND IMMERSION EDUCATION
According to the research, America is the leading state with a large number of immigrants and
different languages. This multilingual community has resulted from too many different
languages spoken in the United States. According to James Crawford (2004), United States has
more than two hundred languages spoken, a phenomenon which brings about language diversity
as he states (p.59). This fact has brought about different arguments in the education sector.
Some people argue that due to different languages especially in North America, the education
sector should embrace Bilingual education programs to cater for the language minority students.
This means that the program would teach English ...


Anonymous
Really great stuff, couldn't ask for more.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags