|
Contradictions of U S Language Values & Policies
Published in Russian & English by the Russian Academy of Science, Institute of the Russian Language,
January 2002
Julio Rodriguez: President, The Culturelink Group of New York, USA and Olga Zatsepina: Assoc. Professor, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia
(Portions of this article were originally published as "Bilingual Education - American Style," Moscow State University Series #19, Volume 3)
Over a week ago, Presidential elections were held in the United States of America. As we type these pages, the result is still unclear and will likely remain so for days to come. How can it be? How can the world's principal proponent of democracy appear to trip on its own principles? About such important matters, answers can not be simple. Cultural anthropologists tell us that one of the defining dynamics of culture is the play of contradictions. Such contradictions affect America's political behavior as much as it's language behavior. Deep and important American values affect the circumstances of this election. As we reflect on them, we will also see their connection with the role of the English language and minority languages in US society.
President of the United States (and the Vice President who runs with him) are the only positions in American government that all American voters can help elect. All registered voters, in every state of the Union, are entitled to vote for President and it is commonly assumed that they cast a "direct vote" for that position. In fact, their vote is not direct. Technically each individual actually votes for representative "electors," who are pledged to vote for a particular presidential candidate in an "Electoral College" to be convened for that purpose, several weeks after the election, in Washington DC. These "electors" are apportioned to each state on the basis of population, one elector for a set number of residents of that state. Lightly populated states have fewer votes, like Vermont which has 4 electors. Larger states have more, like Florida with 25. To further confound the issue, each state determines, a priori, whether all of its "electoral votes" will be cast for the presidential candidate who received the most votes in that state or, if the votes will be apportioned on the basis of the percent of votes received by each presidential candidate. The outcome of this involuted system is that it is possible for a candidate to receive less than half the national votes yet become president by a majority of votes in the "Electoral College." It looks like that may become the case in this election.
In a close contest such as this one, every vote can be decisive. So, it is reasonable that each side will try to affect the outcome in every way possible, even after the balloting is over. The mechanisms used for this purpose are the laws and the courts. The laws establish rules by which the final outcome will be determined and the courts define the interpretation of those rules when contested by competing sides with competing interests. Thus, particularly in close elections, a big part of the election process takes place in the many lower and higher courts of the system as they are used to request recounts, contest ballots, and achieve other objectives. The whole process is bumpy, cumbersome, complicated and messy but, it works. Adherence to the rule of law is a value of enormous consequence because it establishes the basis for determining acceptable behavior and for mediating differences.
By the time the US Constitution was written, the founders of the "new nation," had developed values resulting from the colonists experience with governance in their countries of origin and with the British governance of American colonies. One of those values held that government should be run by the people, it should operate democratically with decisions based on the majority vote of all members of the community. (one man, one vote.) In the small towns of colonial times, this actually took place in "town meetings" where people voted on decisions directly affecting their communities. The idea was that at those meetings, differences could be discussed and minds changed. Everyone would know that they had been heard even if not agreed with and ultimately when a vote was taken and a "majority" opinion prevailed, that was the direction the whole community would take. Inherent in this thinking, was honorable concern for the interests of the "minority." It was not enough to invoke the power of numbers, it was also necessary to protect the integrity of the minorities.
These values appear contradictory and proved very difficult to implement, even to this day. The struggle led to constitutional policies intentionally established to preserve a state of tension between these two ambitious goals; rule by the majority - VS - protection of the minority. This acceptance of "constructive tension" in government, became manifest in the famous principle of "Checks and Balances" visible throughout US government. The model extends from the executive branch, the Presidency, which is in constant tension with Congress, to the judiciary which mediates between them at times but also initiates its own tensions, to all other areas of government and society which are in a constant state of competition but, eventually accommodate themselves to compromise. It is a process which leads to ultimate decisions over time but does not depend on an ultimate decider.
A connected contradiction in values has been the assumption of equality vs individuality - (diversity.) It would not be "Fair" to equate being different with being less than. All men are created equal, but differences between people must be acknowledged and persecution not permitted. People should be free to be themselves. Language use in the United States also reflects these values.
Americans value the rule of law. This applies to the issue of language in several ways. One very important result is that members of congress, in the House of Representatives as well as the Senate, have been reluctant to pass Official English and related laws. Once passed, a seemingly innocuous law which might only state the obvious, that English is the national language of the USA, might have other legal consequences as applied to other areas of government. They might, for instance, be used to justify English only instruction in schools (no bi-lingual instruction.) Such laws exist, as mentioned earlier, in many States but, a national official English law might be used to force the same limitation in all States. It might also be used to prevent the allocation of funds in the Federal budget to carry out federal regulations supporting the use of languages other than English such as;
immigration procedures
at which interpreters must be made available.
Due process in federal trials
at which all parties involved must be provided with nterpreters if they are not English speakers.
Migrant health care
providing bilingual personnel for support programs affecting health of non English speakers.
Voting rights
which provide that voter information be made available in other languages where a significant percent of the population - 5% - or more than 10,000 persons have limited English ability.
Rule by majority vs protection of the minority
James Crawford provides a thoughtful analysis of this matter in an article titled Anatomy of the English-Only Movement. He seems to feel that, on the surface at least, support for English-Only policies runs strong throughout the land while ambivalence about eliminating the right of minority language speakers also exists.
Crawford says, "Reality must be faced: today's anti-bilingual current is a mainstream phenomenon. How deep it runs and what it signifies are more complex questions. When Americans are asked simply, 'Should English be the official language?' the idea seems extremely popular. Variations on this proposal have received 60 - 90 percent approval in opinion polls and ballot boxes. This pattern has held true across every demographic category - age, sex, income, education level, political, and ideological affiliation - except for ethnicity. Latinos have been the most consistent opponents of these measures, although even their views have sometimes wavered (Schmid, 1992). On the other hand, when pollsters ask whether government should restrict minority language use or terminate bilingual services to those who depend on them, support for English-only policies falls off significantly."
There is a phenomenon not often emphasized when discussing English language use in the United States which is the wave of English language adoption taking place all over the world. John Naisbitt, in his book "Global Paradox," tells us that, "English is becoming the universal language of the world" and claims that over one billion inhabitants of this planet speak English and carry out 85 percent of all international calls in English. Seeing that so many people in so many countries all over the world appear content to adopt English as the common tool for world communication, while maintaining their own mother tongue, why should American legislators take the trouble to impose or anoint this language, in a nation whose citizens early on chose to embrace English without duress. And, we will see below that each generation of other language speakers to come to the United States has also duly acquired language skill in the "mother tongue" of their adopted "mother land."
Engraved in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty one finds a poem that reads, in part, "Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry masses yearning to breath free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shores." These words seem to sum up the values and policies of the country with respect to immigrants. Apparently Lady Liberty welcomes with open arms all foreigners with their foreign ways and their foreign languages…. Maybe so -- maybe no!
For many Americans, the level of acceptance of resident foreigners is greatly affected by how quickly those outsiders embrace the culture of the insiders, the established Americans. Acculturation is signaled by manners, dress, comportment and many bold or subtle behaviors but, most of all, it is signaled by language. English is the language of the "Tribe," and membership in that tribe will be very difficult - probably impossible - to achieve without speaking English. Even if their English speech is loaded with "foreign" accents, immigrants can feel themselves part of the Tribe and to some extent they can be accepted as such as long as they speak English.
The great expectation of those who founded the United states was that it would become the home of "a new race of people" who would give up allegiance to old nations, old customs, old cultures and old languages, to create a "New Tribe," in effect. Those who worry about America losing this dream and splitting up into culturally diverse segments see the English language as an essential glue maintaining the countries citizens as a single people. Arthur M. Schlesinger is one of those worriers and in his book The Disuniting of America, speaks out very clearly on the subject.
He says, "Using some language other than English dooms people to second class citizenship in American Society." He supports this statement with a quote from the Mexican-American writer Richard Rodriguez which, for our purposes, inadvertently spotlights many of the values contradictions to which we have alluded. Rodriguez is quoted as saying, " It would have pleased me to hear my teachers address me in Spanish… But I would have delayed … having to learn the language of public society …Only when I was able to think of myself as an American, no longer an alien in gringo society, could I seek the rights and opportunities necessary for full public individuality."
The welcome for Immigrants to the US who speak a language other than English has not always been as cordial as Lady Liberty would suggest. Since the establishment of the original colonies there have been strenuous efforts made, directly and indirectly, to impose it as the official language of the country. One of the most recent efforts took place this month, November 7, 2000 in the State of Arizona where Proposition 203, imposing an English only mandate for school instruction was passed by a 61%. majority vote. By the same margin and with the same intent, Proposition 227 was passed in the State of California June 2, 1998. This legislation effectively eliminates BI-lingual education as a teaching option in the schools. Their effect however is not limited to pedagogical preference; it spills over to English only legislative inclinations as well.
Returning to the idea of cultural contradiction and "constructive tension," we can see this dynamic at play between individual States of the Union and the Federal government of the United States. Local rule, especially as applied to States Powers not specific to the Federal government, are available to individual States and in circumstances like these, States can pass legislation reflecting the bias of their own constituencies. They can not however; override federal legislation. So, California and Arizona for instance, can pass language legislation which effectively discards bilingual education within their own borders. There is no Federal legislation in force one way or the other. Note that both of these areas have significant numbers of speakers of another language, Spanish, since they fall within the areas wrested in war from Mexico, by the United States. But, while in 1890 28.23% of Arizonans were non-English speakers, in 1990 only 1 in a hundred speak no English. It would appear that the impulse to eliminate BI-lingual education originates from sources other than concern for the fate of the English Language. (California, which shares border and commerce with Mexico, only had 8.37% non-English speakers 100 years ago. Today the percent is even lower, 2.93%.)
Other factors, both social and economic, provide impetus to language legislation in many pockets of the country. Areas with large Spanish speaking populations in particular generate much pro English Only fervor. Spanish speakers and Hispanic Heritage people will soon constitute the single largest minority in the US. They are already the largest language minority. It is understandable that people in Southwestern States, with so much history of Spanish culture and language might feel apprehensive about becoming inundated by a people who identify by language and culture as different and separate from them. This could be perceived as a threat not just to the English language but to the customs and privileges which that language and Anglo cultural dominance has provided.
To date, half of the States have adopted various forms of Official English legislation. The Federal Government has not. Again "constructive tension" continues to perform its duty as the mechanism by which conflicting interests accommodate themselves in pursuit of national purpose. In time this mechanism will provide the nation with a President Elect as the courts and the counts make their unique contribution to an acceptable solution. So too the place of English and the "minority" languages that murmur through the land will be determined through the American system of legislation, courts and public opinion.
English - the "Default" Language:
C.M. Eastman's uses the following definitions regarding language use: "The term 'national language' refers to a language which serves the entire area of a nation rather than a regional or ethnic subdivision. As the language of a political, social and cultural entity, a national language also functions as a national symbol…." By this measure, English is the national language of the United States but, it is not the official language in as much as it is not "legally prescribed as the language of governmental operations of a given nation."
No national legislation has ever been passed establishing English as the "Official Language" or anything similar. But, English does fulfill the role of "Sentimental Language" that Eastman refers to and it works to fill the need for unity of the nations citizens. In this respect it parallels the role of the Russian language in the former Soviet Union, except that as L.A. Granoble reports, Stalin effectively imposed the use of Russian at the 17th Party congress by making compulsory the study of that language. Attempts to impose English on linguistic minorities have also taken place in the United States and continue to this day but they have never achieved the status of federal law or policy. In the case of the United States it may be argued that English became the "default" language. Computer users accept that when nothing else is specified or needed or more useful, the "default" is used. English is, in a way, the "default" language of the country. New arrivals discovered that their use of their "home" language was, for the most part, tolerated but, they nevertheless deferred to English in relatively short time.
This phenomenon continues as shown by comparisons of US census data from 1980 to 1990 regarding language spoken at home and self reported English speaking ability. In 1980, 210.3 million residents were counted in the US. In 1990, the population increased to 230.5 million. Of these, an increase of only 6.1% was noted for monolingual English speakers over that period. A 38.1% increase was reported for those who speak a language other than English at home but, there was a remarkable counterbalancing increase in the percent of individuals (38.7%) who reported speaking English very well. The fact that the percent of people who speak a language other than English at home has risen at the same rate as the percent of people who speak English very well is truly remarkable when, as noted in Table I below, this is so despite the large increase in the number of other language speakers.
Table I. Census Data on Language Spoken at Home and Self-Reported English-Speaking Ability, United States, 1980 and 1990
| Home Language |
1980 |
% |
1990 |
% |
Change |
| All speakers, age 5+ |
210,247,555
|
100.0
|
230,445,777
|
100.0
|
+9.6%
|
| English only |
187,187,515
|
89.0
|
198,600798
|
86.2
|
+6.1%
|
| Language other than English |
23,060,040
|
11.0
|
31,844,979
|
13.8
|
+38.1%
|
|
Speaks English very well
|
12,879,004
|
6.1
|
17,862,477
|
7.8
|
+38.7%
|
|
... well
|
5,957,544
|
2.8
|
7,310,301
|
3.2
|
+22.7%
|
|
... not well
|
3,005,503
|
1.4
|
4,826,958
|
2.1
|
+60.6%
|
|
... not at all
|
1,217,989
|
0.6
|
1,845,243
|
0.8
|
+51.5%
|
|
... with some "difficulty"*
|
10,181,036
|
4.8
|
13,982,502
|
6.1
|
+37.3%
|
*Includes all persons who report speaking English less than "very well."
Sources: 1980 Census of Population, vol. 1, chap. D, pt. 1 (PC80-1-D1-A); U.S. Census Bureau, "Language Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English for United States, Regions, and States: 1990" (1990 CPH-L-133). (James Crawford published this chart on-line Nov. 2000. ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD)
There are other demonstrations of the trend toward rapid English language acquisition despite the absence of an official government mandate. According to the US Department of the Interior compendium of the 11th Census, one hundred years earlier, in 1890, there were 4.5 times more non-English speakers living in the US than those found in the 1990 census. And, in more recent times, despite an increase of 40.7% in the foreign born population just since 1980 to 1990, there was an increase of over 100% in the number of people reporting that they have no difficulty with English. (See Table II below)
Table II. Language Patterns of Immigrants, by Length of U.S. Residence, 1980 and 1990 (000s)
|
1980 |
% |
1990 |
% |
Change |
| Population, age 5+ |
210,247,555
|
100.0
|
230,445,777
|
100.0
|
+9.6%
|
| Native-born |
196,388
|
93.4
|
210,940
|
91.5
|
+7.4%
|
| Foreign-born |
13,860
|
6.6
|
19,506
|
8.5
|
+40.7%
|
| Recent Immigrants |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ten years or less in US |
5,340
|
100.0
|
8,403
|
100.0
|
+57.4%
|
| Speak only English @ home |
868
|
16.3
|
1,010
|
12.0
|
+16.4%
|
| Speak other language @ home |
4,471
|
83.7
|
7,393
|
88.0
|
+65.4%
|
| No difficulty with English* |
2,198
|
41.2
|
4,399
|
52.4
|
+100.1%
|
| Earlier Immigrants |
|
|
|
|
|
| More than 10 years in U.S. |
8,520
|
100.0
|
11,104
|
100.0
|
+30.3%
|
| Speak only English @ home |
3,262
|
38.3
|
3,066
|
27.6
|
-6.0%
|
| Speak other language @ home |
5,258
|
61.7
|
8,037
|
72.4
|
+52.9%
|
| No difficulty with English* |
5,734
|
67.3
|
6,978
|
62.8
|
+21.7%
|
The Big Divide:
There is probably no greater indicator of a nation's attitudes and policies with respect to language than how it provides for the instruction of its children. To learn that thousands of pages of often angry print are regularly published on the topic of Bilingual Education in the United States could make someone wonder why Americans would raise such a scandal about an obscure academic topic. Actually, its intellectual importance provides only a minor reason for the interest. Below the surface and of sometimes greater importance, are considerations of politics, power, and profit hidden by clouds of controversy over the "educational merit" of competing instructional approaches.
On the surface, the split divides those who favor "Bi-Lingual Education," initially teaching all subjects to non- English speakers in their native language while at the same time helping them acquire English language ability, from those who prefer "Total Immersion;" that students be totally encircled by the target language. They reason that students are thus overwhelmed into learning the language quickly by having no alternative. Behind well meaning, committed professionals on each side of the divide there are powerful beliefs and values which influence the argument and conflicting self interests which exacerbate the differences. Things are not as simple as they seem.
Bilingual education intends to allow a young student, entering the American educational system, to continue to learn the "content" of a basic education; history, science, mathematics etc., in his native language while, at the same time receiving English language instruction. As he develops competence and confidence in English, his native language is overlaid with English during "content" instruction so that he begins to learn the vocabulary of both languages at the same time. In this manner it is expected the student will retain interest in school and in learning because he is not being held back from acquiring knowledge or falling behind his peers while struggling to learn a new language. Also, since people learn language (or anything else) at their own individual pace, he can be helped along at the pace that suits him until he acquires enough language competence to handle English only instruction, whether it takes a day, a year or much more. As originally intended, bilingual education is a temporary approach to be continued only as long as the student needs it to acquire enough proficiency so that he can successfully join mainstream classes.
Proponents of "total immersion," say that the student should join mainstream classes from the start and while studying subject matter acquire the language skills in parallel. They maintain that a young person entering the American public school system has an enviable learning opportunity. Unlike those who learn English in a Foreign Country (EFL), they are surrounded by English and have the chance to learn it as their first language, with the advantage of having developed language learning skills from the first experience (ESL). The need to communicate, to be understood and to understand, is a powerful motivator and each successful step in language acquisition rewards and reinforces their interest. When formal English language instruction during the school day is added, learning is even more accelerated. And, there is no hypocritical denial of the importance of language acquisition, that goal is paramount [first you learn the language, then you learn everything else.]
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Since the time Columbus invited himself to the Caribbean, there has been a constant flow of new arrivals from all over the world, initially Europe, then Africa and later Asia. The flow, sometimes slowed but never stemmed, continues and thus the matter of language acquisition is understandably central to the interests of the nation.
Both positions target "new immigrant" children and share the objective of helping them acquire the English language as soon as possible so that they can continue to be educated in that language. For many educators however; that is not the only goal. Some teachers consider that the first language ability of the student is a tremendous asset in this age of instant communication, rapid world travel, and international markets. It should not be ignored; it should not be lost. They hold that bilingual education should continue throughout the school years so the student is prepared to function in two languages and at least two cultures. Furthermore, they see enough value in this experience to encourage native English speaking students to seek a bilingual experience; a sort of reverse bi-lingualism.
Behind all the pedagogy however; dwell historical and philosophical motives, which intensify the conflict.
Multilingual Colonies:
The American "Founding Fathers" viewed English as the dominant language and subsumed other "national" languages under the US flag but, they allowed schools to continue instruction in German, Spanish, Dutch, French etc. from the Colonial Era until World War I. In 1900, contemporary surveys reported that 600,000 elementary school children, public and parochial (Church schools- religious schools), were receiving part or all of their instruction in the German language. This figure, equivalent to 4 percent of the elementary school population at the time, was probably larger than the proportion of children in all US bilingual classrooms today. Where language minorities commanded local majorities, they usually controlled their own educational systems. The first public schools in the state of Texas established a system by the municipality of New Braunfels in the 1850s, operated mostly in German. At about the same time, the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma established a system of 21 bilingual schools and two academies, achieving higher literacy rates in both English and Cherokee than the neighboring states of Arkansas and Texas who taught only in English.
At that time educators saw no contradictions in fostering bilingual education and assimilation at the same time. In 1870, William Torrey Harris, the US Commissioner of Education from St. Louis even saw political/social benefits to bilingual education. "If separate nationalities keep their own (Lutheran and Catholic) schools, it will result that Anglo- and German-American youth will not intermingle and caste-distinctions will grow up." He believed strongly in the public school's mission to "Americanize the immigrant." but differed from the promoters of this cause in his conviction that the process would proceed more efficiently by voluntary rather than coercive means. In St. Louis, his approach proved successful. After 15 years of German/English bilingual programs, the percentage of German American children attending the public schools had increased from 20 percent to 80 percent.
After the World Wars - Wars of Words:
But, by the end of World War I, speaking languages other than English, especially German, came to be associated with disloyalty to the States and such war based fears strengthened a campaign to "Americanize the immigrant", especially in linguistic matters. By 1923, thirty-four states had adopted laws banning native-language instruction and, in some cases, foreign-language teaching in the early grades. The second World War which, like the first, pitted German speakers, English speakers, Italian speakers and French speakers against one another; also strengthened tendencies in the United States to prohibit the use of languages other than English. "Foreign" language speaker's loyalty could be questioned. Their patriotic commitment doubted. Their ties (familial and cultural) to other people from other lands became highlighted by the language they shared.
Emphasizing the use of English and extinguishing the use of minority languages in the US became a way to demonstrate patriotism. Among the strongest proponents of this attitude were parents who spoke with an accent, even as they encouraged their children to speak in English and learn that language well in their schools. US patriotism and use of the English language became merged in the collective subconscious. As a result, bilingual education largely disappeared until the early 1960s, when it was revived by Cuban exiles in Dade County, Florida. At the same time, when Mexican Americans demanded an end to sink-or-swim neglect, they marshaled sufficient moral and legal authority to win bilingual election subsidies, court orders, and civil rights enforcement.
However vaguely defined in legal terms, the right of parental choice has been reserved as an American political principle in education and at times as a powerful rallying cry for diverse groups of parents, including language minorities. As James Crawford tells us in 1889, when German Americans learned that Wisconsin and Illinois had imposed English -only instruction on parochial as well as public schools, they put aside factional concerns, organized to defeat the ruling Republican Party at the next election, and soon repealed the legislation.
In August 1996 the US House of Representatives approved a bill making English the official language of the US but, the Senate did not approve the bill and it did not become law. On its surface, the idea seems harmless. What could be bad about making formal something that is clearly true informally? English is, in long established practice, the official language of the US. But, if made law, there are many implications, including some that would affect the right of parental choice with respect to BI-lingual instruction. "Linguistic Jingoism" has origins in the countries earliest days. Robert D. King finds one of our most respected founders, Benjamin Franklin, guilty of this perspective and quotes him in 1753 saying, "Those [Germans] who come hither are generally the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation.... They will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not, in My Opinion, be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious."
Much later, Theodore Roosevelt acknowledging the concept of melting pot said, "We have room for but one language here, 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."
With the force of an official English law behind it, there would be great momentum behind the movement to eradicate "BI-lingual education" as an option under parental choice. In this respect it is interesting to note that it is not just US citizens with a long history of "Anglo" descendants who oppose BI-lingual education. Some of its loudest opponents descend from quite distant cultures, emerging as "super-patriots" prepared to valiantly defend flag, country, and language against the intrusion of "outsiders." US English, the flagship organization of the English Only movement, was founded in 1983 by the late US Senator and distinguished linguist, S.I. Hayakawa, of Japanese descent, while Mauro E. Mujica, architect, businessman and immigrant from Chile, South America now sits as Chairman of the Board of that organization.
Legislative Initiatives:
Some related bills introduced in the Congress could ultimately exclude the use of non-English languages in the courts. Present practice in the US judiciary is to provide official interpreters to non-English speaking defendants in order to preserve the concept of equal treatment under law. Under these laws, that protection would be lost. Government notices are now routinely translated into other languages in areas where there are significant populations who speak another language, notably Spanish for instance. These laws would prevent government from spending tax dollars to provide such translations, significantly affecting public health and safety issues in many areas of the country.
There are those who couch arguments about BI-lingual education in more negative terms. In a Time magazine article, Margot Hornblower/Westminster writes, "Bilingual education is exploding into one of the nation's most divisive political issues, fueled on one hand, by a backlash against immigration and affirmative action and, on the other, by the failures and ideological strictures of some existing bilingual programs." Sue Dicker, the chair of the English Plus Subcommittee of TESOL's Sociopolitical Concerns Committee, sees hypocrisy in English language bills, implying malevolent motives to their supporters, "The overall intent of official-English legislation is clear. Nothing in these bills would help immigrants learn English, adjust to life in their new country, or succeed economically. Instead, the effect of official-English laws would be to intensify the marginalization of people who lack English language skills and have few resources to improve their lives."
At times conflicts surrounding BI-lingual education become interlaced with openly economic concerns including jobs and government contracts. In the early seventies, New York City experienced unprecedented turmoil in its educational system. Until 1969, all public school education had been centralized under one Board of Education and one Superintendent. During the preceding decade, an unprecedented surge in "minority" arrivals to the city combined with "white flight" had brought abrupt changes in the complexion of the city, in all kinds of ways. Neighborhoods had changed and parents from all of them were clamoring for a better response from the educational community. By 1969 the strife and uproar had forced the NY State Legislature to pass laws establishing over 30 separate and semi autonomous school districts where there had been only one. By January 1971, the New York Times was reporting that student enrolment had tipped. Black (33.6%) and Hispanic (25.1%) students together constituted 58.7% of the school population (in some districts over 80 percent) but, teaching staff and administration did not even begin to reflect the student population. (NY Times Yearly Index 1971)
Parents of minority students (Black and Hispanic mainly) protested that the system was out of touch with its students, that "Jobs" in the school system (teachers, administrators and other "patronage" positions ) were overwhelmingly held by non minority employees. They wanted a "piece of the pie," and, of parallel importance, they wanted role models for their kids and culturally sensitive staff who could identify with and respond to the needs of their children. An entrenched bureaucracy, mainly in the form of the Board of Examiners, guarded the portals of entry to employment in the educational system. In July of 1972, then Chancellor Charles Scribner, in a moment of incredible candor, suggested to a meeting of Hispanic educators that the fact that only 1.4% of the 110,000 employees of the NYC public school system, dealing with a 25% Hispanic student population were Hispanic themselves, could well be the result of discrimination.
After a period of enormous conflict, one of the many compromises reached to accommodate the aspirations of the constituent communities was that new "titles," BI-lingual titles, would be created with applicable "licensing." In this manner, Hispanic teachers, despite their accents, could have their considerable credentials recognized and be employed within the system to teach "BI-lingual classes." So, notwithstanding the relative merits of BI-lingual education as pedagogy, BI-lingual education also created the wedge for Hispanic professionals to enter ranks of employment and financial improvement within the system.
Given that New York City schools have experienced a 49% increase in non-English speaking immigrants in six years preceding 1995, it can be argued that there continues to be an even broader need for bilingual education. Now classes are taught in Spanish, Chinese, Haitian, Russian, Korean, Arabic, Vietnamese Polish, Bengali and French. Not every school can afford the full bilingual program but many give instructions in native language several hours a day along with instruction in English (ESL).
Additional economic advantage was gained not only for Hispanic teachers but likewise for the districts in which they reside when government legislation, particularly through Federal Title VII, provided money to support compensatory educational programs including BI-lingual education.
Ironically, the lure of government money for language instruction has contributed to conflict among minority communities. Some African American educators argue that forms of English spoken by Black Americans are linguistically consistent and therefore constitute a "BI-lingual" teaching opportunity. By this argument, government dollars could be sought by programs employing teachers who understand "Ebonics," providing additional jobs and economic benefits to that community. In the interest of not wanting to share that particular "piece of pie," Hispanic resistance to the idea has been significant and has contributed to legislation targeted to stop government funds in support of Ebonics as a distinct language.
"The new law defines bilingual education as a system of instruction that builds upon the language skills of a pupil whose primary language is neither English nor derived from English and prohibits school districts from using state funds or resources, as part of a bilingual program, for the purpose of recognizing or instructing in any dialect, idiom, or language derived from English." ( Stats. 1997, Chapter 647 (AB 1206, Martinez) Adds Education Code Section 30.5.)
As language teachers will find so very familiar, words have meaning far beyond their definitions. In this case it clearly appears that the term BI-lingual Education provides a prime example in which politics, economics and bias may carry at least as much weight as pedagogy.
References:
1) James Crawford Anatomy of the English-Only Movement, 1996 Conference at U. of Illinois, published on jwcrawford@compuserve.com
2) James Crawford Social Justice 25, #3 (Fall 1998)
3) Robert D. King "Should English Be the Law?," Atlantic Monthly, April 1997
4) Margaret Hornblower Time Magazine, October 9, 1995
5) Sue Dicker TESOL Matters, October 1998 N8, New York Times, Yearly Index 1970, 71, 72.
6) Joseph Fitzpatrick, SJ One Church Many Cultures: The Challenge of Diversity, Sheed & Ward 1987
7) Joel Spring The American School, McGraw Hill, 1997,
8) Arthur Schlesinger Jr. The Disuniting of America, W.W. Norton & Co.1992
9) John Naisbitt Global Paradox Avon Books, 1995
10) L.A. Grenoble Language Education policy- Former Soviet Union, Cambridge, Encyclopedia of Language.
11) C. M. Eastman National Languages
12) 1980 1990 Census Data reported by Dorothy Waggoner, Numbers and Needs 5, No 6, Nov. 1995, referenced by J. Crawford;
*Includes all foreign-born who speak only English at home or speak English very well." Source: Dorothy Waggoner, "Are Current Home Speakers of Non-English Languages Learning English?" Numbers and Needs 5, no. 6 (Nov. 1995): 1, 3. (This newsletter on language and demography is available from Box G1H/B, 3900 Watson Place, N.W., Washington, DC 20016.) (James Crawford published this chart on-line Nov. 2000) is a values contradiction which directly affects language policies in the US. The majority of its population speak English. It might be reasonable to expect all residents to do the same. But, to be truly respectful and protective of the minority, you must accept that they have the right to be different and the need to have important information provided in a way that they can understand it. Fairness dictates that their own language be used when appropriate. Personal freedom, the right to be different, must be protected in the area of language as well. If however; it is perceived that accommodating this difference will cause an undue burden on the community - on the majority - resentments arise and there is a backlash against languages other than English that helps fuel other language resentment.
|
