Not One, But Many Languages
On Sunday, August 10, the Times-Union editorial writers (“ One
language”) made a predictably uninformed foray into the issues of
bilingual education and the “official English” movement. There are many
things to say, one being that “bilingual education” is not a single
thing; there are many models for teaching and learning in multilingual
school communities. But first, I want to address two false statements
about bilingual education that appeared in the editorial:
(1) “Bilingual education […] has been a disaster.”
This assertion is based on a report on bilingual education in the New
York City schools that was issued by the Lexington Institute, a
conservative “think-tank.” The fact is, of course, that any program,
however potentially beneficial, can be a “disaster” if it is
under-funded, improperly administered, and so on. But the truth about
bilingual education in New York, and elsewhere, is that it has been
anything but a “disaster” for thousands of young people whose first
language was something other than English. The Ell Subcommittee
Research Studies Progress Report analyzed data from 1991-99 and
concluded that:
New York City’s bilingual/ESL programs have demonstrated substantial
effectiveness in developing the English language proficiency of ELLs
[English language learners] and ensuring their success in the
educational mainstream.
Similar results have been obtained all over the country, and for
different kinds of bilingual programs. For some examples of successful
bilingual programs go to here.
(2) “…[S]tudies show immigrant children fare much better in English
immersion programs.”
It is true that certain kinds of immersion can be very effective, if
children are given the support and resources they need. One of the
successful schools described on the web site above is a “dual
immersion” program for children whose native languages are Spanish and
English. I don’t have the space to describe this program here, except
to say that it’s not likely what the TU editors have in mind by
“immersion”: the draconian “sink or swim” experience within which a few
succeed but many do not. For the TU editors, and conservatives in
general, “fare much better” is code for “manage to become just
proficient enough in English to provide underpaid labor for an
exploitative system.”
The TU editors also expressed support for H.R. 997, another in a series
of attempts to have English declared the “official language” of the US.
This bill is an example of the xenophobia and racism underlying H.R.
123, the "English Language Empowerment Act of 1996,” legislation that
even Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican
representatives of perhaps the most right-wing population in the
country, spoke against at the time. Diaz-Balart said, in part,
“Democracy not only requires governing by the majority, but respect for
the minority. This legislation, which constitutes aggression on
linguistic minorities in this country, is anti-Democratic.”
I could write much more on this topic, but I know the TU editors will
allow me only so much space, if they publish this criticism at all. So
I will finish by pointing readers to the following internet resources.
The first contains good, factual information about bilingual education:
The National Association for Bilingual Education
The following site covers both bilingual education and the “official
English” controversy.
Jim Crawford’s “Language Policy Web Site”
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/
Finally, the Linguistic Society of America has a statement on “official English” at:
http://www.lsadc.org/web2/resolutionsfr.htm
Ronald Kephart
Associate Professor of Anthropology
University of North Florida
Written August 11, 2003