Bilingual education enables every child to become English proficient

Published: Monday, September 28, 1998

Monday, September 28, 1998

Bilingual

education enables every child to become English proficient

BILINGUAL: Politicians ignore cultural, social applications of studying both English, Spanish

They say ignorance is bliss. Many inaccurate statements, shrouded in the forgiving cloak of ignorance, have been made about bilingual education.

Ever since I became interested in bilingual education, people have asked - either directly or indirectly - why a white, monolingual New Jersey native would be interested in bilingual education.

My particular interests were cultivated at a very young age. My mother and her family emigrated from Chile when she was 3 years old. She spoke both Spanish and English until she turned 5. Then, due to the taunting of peers, she closed the door to her bilingualism and refused to speak another word of Spanish at home. In asserting herself, she became a victim of the same English-only message being sent to today's limited-English proficient youth.

After listening to my relatives' stories and to the rolled R's and tildes of my grandmother and great aunt, I became intrigued by their mysterious language. There was no question for me when I chose to study Spanish in middle school. This language was exciting, alive and the key to my past and present relatives.

Living with my Chilean cousin furthered my interest in the language, and the cultural sensitivity I developed was irreplaceable. Perhaps this triggered my role in high school as a Spanish language tutor and vice president of the American Field Service the next year. I befriended exchange students from Turkey, Mexico and Spain.

With blind optimism, I began college as an aspiring educator. I approached the classroom as a teacher for the first time during my junior year. To my dismay, the environment was not ideal. I was greeted by an angry, ill-prepared teacher who allowed chaos to reign in her classroom. An injustice occurred on multiple levels - the students weren't learning, the teacher felt incapable and the school remained unaware of what was going on.

During that year, my work showed me the priorities of the district; its limited funding for these low-income communities went toward minimizing the effects of the over-crowded schools through construction.

Continued professional development, ongoing technical assistance and quality content training were simply ideas that I had read about in a textbook. They were certainly not inherent in this school system.

Also during this year, I continued my study of linguistics, English and took the occasional Spanish culture and language course. Through these fascinating classes, I maintained my interest in social and political issues.

Continued study and work with students reinforced my understanding that illiteracy was the reason for failure in education. In my classrooms of native English speakers, success always led back to language mastery and literacy.

Yet, having an interest in the equitable education of all students, I was acutely aware of language-minority populations in education. Opting for a different kind of spring break, I took an opportunity to be a teaching assistant in an inner-city Los Angeles school.

The experience focused my educational prospects in a profound way. Three out of 35 students were bilingual, and most of the students communicated in broken English. The inner city, the poverty, the problems and the languages were all considered barriers for these children. Yet, the teachers at this school were making them the "empowered bilingual" in spite of adversity.

The summer of 1998 turned out to be very influential, as well. I applied for a position in the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) at the United States Department of Education, not anticipating the myriad issues facing OBEMLA. Some were because of the re-authorization of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA).

The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII, required severe attention and clarification. Many English-only proponents attacked the law, suggesting drastic revisions. Some even wished for its abolition.

My OBEMLA experience is best described as eclectic. Although based as a research consultant for this office, I also attended the Washington, D.C., IASA Reauthorization Forums hosted by the department. At these forums, eminent scholars, policy makers, social servants and education administrators, as well as parents and teachers, voiced concerns, solutions and policy shortcomings.

Thus began my first glance at the federal, state and local levels of education working together to find solutions to the problems facing the most disadvantaged students. I summarized, read, noted and then read some more.

Idealism seeped into and out of my work.

Although I have left OBEMLA with more profound questions and less immediate solutions than I had anticipated, I carry with me a breadth of applicable knowledge. I understand the research findings, the myths and the controversies surrounding bilingual education in our nation.

It is clear that bilingual education is not a simple method of instruction. It is a complex, multi-leveled, long-existent methodology that will continue to undergo improvements.

Alice Callaghan, an ardent proponent of Proposition 227, has repeatedly touted monolingual instruction, saying that native-language instruction doesn't work. She believes that "you can't learn to read and write English by studying Spanish. It doesn't make sense."

However, in 1997, the National Research Counsel concluded that "there are no negative consequences of learning two languages in childhood and that there are some positive correlations between bilingualism and general cognitive ability."

Often accompanying ignorant statements is a basic distrust for educators.

Decisions are no longer made by educators but by politicians. According to Ron Unz, English for the Children - otherwise known as Proposition 227 - is the only answer. Unz doesn't believe "education theory as being scientifically respectable." With Proposition 227, the plug was pulled on all of California's bilingual programs, regardless of their effectiveness.

A lack of factual information continues to "inform" our society.

Assuming that all students should be taught only in English in order to learn English is not sound. Studies, longitudinal research and a wealth of examples prove this idea ineffective. For instance, research proves it takes four to seven years to master academic English.

The issues surrounding bilingual education revolve around language discrimination, social welfare, immigration and education reform. To sit back and accept the passage of laws which are socially or educationally wrong would be unacceptable.

It is time for one of the most influential populaces in the nation, our university students, to take action. This action could be as simple as a statement of concern or as complex as organized lobbying.

What began for me as a personal goal has assumed more ambitious public concerns. With a master's degree in teaching English as a second language, I will apply my passion for language and literature working toward the common goal of English proficiency and social and educational equity.

My goals include teaching and administrating in a district in which the bilingual education programs are sound, well-practiced and implemented. I will continue research into effectiveness and fundamental problems plaguing teacher-training institutions.

As an advocate for bilingual education, I hope to drive policy that reflects equitable practice rather than inflicting a legal equity that will simply flaunt itself on the paper on which it is written. Through these aspirations, I have no doubt that advances for the future of education and policy await. And, indeed, that is what I'd call bliss.

Horning is a fourth-year English and education student at the College of William and Mary. She held a position as a research consultant for the U.S. Department of Education this summer.

Comments, feedback, problems?