According to the U. S. Census Bureau (1990), 97% of U. S. residents speak English "well" or "very well."
The 2000 Census reported that even though non-English-speaking immigration has grown as a percentage of all immigrants, rates of English fluency are also on a growth track.
Despite this rise in English language proficiency nationally, the "English-only" movement has gained momentum.
Twenty-four states have taken legal action to declare English as their official language. This means that residents in English-only states must interact with their local and state governments using only English, including at the polls on election days.
The English-only movement has stirred a national backlash against bilingual education and bilingual teaching strategies.
According to Andrew Hartman in his provocative essay, "Language as Oppression: The English-Only Movement in the United States" (Poverty & Race, Volume 14: Number 3, May/June 2005, pages 1ff), "most serious research supports bilingual instruction as the best means to advance language skills, thus enhancing long-term English acquisition."
Hartman argues that there is much more to the English-only movement than educational theory. He contends that the movement's attack on bilingual education is thoroughly racist and stands in our national tradition of colonialism and social control. Doing away with bilingual education allows for the immersion of immigrant children in public schools whose job it is to "forge 'commonalities'" for the national and common good.
I was struck by Hartman's documentation of the fact that Latinos who speak only English actually are worse off economically than those who speak no English. You may be asking how could this be? The question itself arises from our acceptance of another powerful, national myth.
The fact is Latinos who do not receive the benefits of the Spanish-speaking community find that these lost assets are not replaced by membership in the English-speaking community.
Hartman makes a compelling case from an educator's perspective that bilingual instruction is the best way for children to learn to speak English. Hear him out:
"A long-term national study has documented higher student achievement in bilingual classrooms than in traditional English as second language (ESL) classrooms or immersion (English-only) classrooms. . . .The level of a person's language skills will only be as advanced as the level of his or her first language. . . .Children who are immersed and mainstreamed in English-only classrooms prior to developing abstract skills will only learn functional English. Functional English may be all that is required to enable them, as adults, to work the monotonous, semi-skilled jobs that the market demands, but it hinders these future citizens from learning how to think abstractly, which in turn limits their ability to address societal problems" (pages 7-8).
You can obtain a copy of Hartman's fascinating essay by contacting him at ae.Hartman@verizon.net. It will be worth the time and effort.
As I read what he wrote, I began to think about the very obvious missed opportunity right before us.
To take advantage of it, to capture it before it is too late will require that we behave as members of an authentic national community.
Our nation and our world is changing.
All of our children need language training. All of us need it as well!
It is certainly true for us here in Dallas that every English-speaking child needs to learn and master Spanish in preparation for life in our world just as badly as every Spanish-speaking child needs to develop the capacity to speak English to be successful.
Our children are together every day.
Am I wrong or is there not a great opportunity here for all of our children to help one another and in the process make our community, our neighborhoods and our nation stronger in many, many ways?
Is there no way to teach all of our children both languages and in the process allow them to deepen their understanding of one another?
Is it the funding that stops us? Or, is Hartman correct? Is it cultural and racist?
We must open our eyes and do better for the sake of our children and our future.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteWow! You are right on with the bilingual missional approach. The English only movement is ill-informed and deeply racist. We had English only here in Texas prior to the 1960's and 85% of Hispanics were not graduating.
You are exactly correct about the need to know your first language in order to learn a second language. The best way for Latinos to learn English is to learn LANGUAGE using their heart language.
I teach bilingual second grade in Garland and am working on a Master's in Bilingual Education at SMU. You speak the truth.
Let the church awake to this mission opportunity!
Paul
Across the nation, youth development agencies recognize the importance of placing older youth in mentoring roles over younger children. This is one of the best ways to develop skills in both the mentors and the mentees: the mentees have a strong role model, and the older mentors develop self-confidence, presentation skills and genuine values of friendship and community.
ReplyDeleteFor over a century, scouting programs have used this model for promoting character development and self-reliance skills. This model has also been used effectively in athletic programs and after-school programs for many years. There must be a way to replicate this on a language basis.
For example, English-speakers could teach English to Spanish-speakers in return for having those same Spanish-speakers teach Spanish to the English-speakers. Not only would it allow both groups to learn a second language, but it would surely improve their own skills in their native tongue.
We each bring our talents to the table, and in offering them to each other, we improve our original talents while also gaining new ones. Talk about community development!
Unidos podemos!
I have spent time in several other countries in both Europe and South America and found that it is very uncommon NOT to be proficient in more than one language. In Russia, for example, it was typical to know at least 2, often 3, other languages. Many people are eager to acquire another language, especially English. It seems that in the United States, we have a collective, subconscious fear and stubborn unwillingness to learn other languages. While it is a normal and expected component of a person's education in other countries, we balk here in the U.S. and instead insist that everyone else in the world learn our language (which most of them are!). Even though studying a foreign language is required in most schools, there is no real effort to truly master the language--usually there's just enough effort to pass the class and move on. Where does this "fear" or laziness or whatever it is come from? Why in a country as advanced as ours is it so rare for a person to be educated in more than one language? Why this collective stubbornness and lack of interest? In the midst of our supposed "advancement", I don't think most Americans realize how behind we really are.
ReplyDeleteRachel, I believe you will enjoy reading Hartman's article. He gets at an answer to your question and it goes to our desire to establish a level of social control and power via language. I have a copy in my office if you would like to have it.
ReplyDeleteSherry,
ReplyDeleteIn Texas, we're lucky if our public schools can even get books in English. Literacy, let alone bilingual literacy, is hardly a priority for us.
Sad facts of life in a nation that assumes itself to be the best in the world.
Okay. Is your church prepared to teach all of its children Spanish and to teach all of the Spanish speaking children who live in your community English? Can your group or for that matter all of the churches in your community handle the scale of this opportunity? What is the church's work?
ReplyDeleteNo, i break cell phones, what I am suggesting is that our national community learn to see win-win situations that could benefit everyone rather than continuing to be so unilateral and defensive. That's really what I am saying.
ReplyDeleteI also am probing about our attitudes toward "outsiders" to see if possibly we aren't biased against yet another group of wonderful people who bring great wealth to our national experience and identity.
ibreakcellphones: I will never hold this country to the minimum standard of "doing as well as other countries." What we have the capacity to do for our people, we should do -- regardless of what France, England and others do.
ReplyDeleteLet us be the light on the hill which we were made to be.