Bilingual Education Policy and It's Promises and Problems for Native American English Learners

"At the heart of multicultural education is the concept of cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralism not only appreciates but promotes cultural diversity. It recognizes that it is the unique contributions of various cultural groups that strengthen and enrich our society" (Baca and Miramontes, 1985). By definition, Native Americans are a culturally and linguistically diverse group. Over five hundred tribes range across the United States and Canada. Each tribe or group has its own culture, traditions and language or dialect that has been impacted by Federal Policies and State Amendments that have been created or influenced by the English for the Children movement in the United States.

Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Inuit and Yupik natives range throughout Hawaii, various Island territories and Alaska and represent an opportunity for our educational system. "Native Hawaiians (also known as Kanaka Mâoli and Kanaka Oiwi) and various other Pacific Islander American peoples, such as the Chamorros (Chamoru), can also be considered Native American, but it is not common to use such a designation" (Wikipedia, 2007). Still, any attempt to consider the English only Movement in terms of Federal and State Policies across the United States must include these cultures as well as other Native American groups.

English for the Children is a new name on a decades old movement. "In 1981, Senator Hayakawa proposed a Constitutional Amendment declaring English the official language of the United States" (Ovando et all, 2006). Senator Hayakawa was born in Canada and was bilingual. He argued that putting English first was a matter of national economics and common sense. His movement has sparked intense debate over the years but the amendment he proposed failed to become a law of the land. Hayakawa's movement has continued to be an important element in establishing education agenda for this country because of the ongoing debate about the importance of language in our society.

In the late 1990's, Businessman Ron Unz began a campaign to reform the existing bilingual education policies in our country and replace them with English immersion policies that forced children to learn the English language in a shorter period of time. Amendments to existing educational policies were proposed in several states and collectively placed under the 'English for the Children' banner in each state election. Under the proposed legislative acts, children would be given only a year to bridge between their experiences and skills in their native language before being immersed in English language programs being taught at Public Schools. The dismal record of existing bilingual policies helped to fuel the debate over whether or not to pass the measures in several states but the lack of flexibility in the proposed amendments caused a gradual slowdown of the movement. "The movement began to fizzle after 2002. The offices of English for the Children have closed, and studies have consistently been punching holes in core tenets of the English-only argument" (Hamilton, 2006).

It can be successfully argued that the question of English is not in and of itself the issue behind the English for the Children Movement. Also, it is well known that "English was not always the language of instruction in American public schools" (Porter, 1998). Instead, we need only look to the problems existent in our schools to see the reasons behind the English for the Children Movement. "Bilingual education is a classic example of an education experiment begun with the best of humanitarian good will that has turned out to be terribly wrong-headed but is almost impossible to change" (Porter, 1998). Education planning in the United States was once set primarily through local control but today every child is educated by a confusing mixture of Federal, State and local policies that affect every classroom in America.

The drive for reform in our schools has led to the adoption of 'No Child Left Behind' policies and related measures underwritten and designed by Federal, State and local governments. The English-only Movement had at its roots the problems besetting our educational system including an ongoing belief that our public educational system is not performing as it should across our country despite a flurry of Federal and State laws forcing compliance in educational testing and curriculum.

For example, "Initiative supporters argue that bilingual education has provided such a poor return on the state's investment of $35 million - and millions more shifted from district coffers and federal grants - that channeling all efforts into a single program is the only answer" (Tapia, 2000). Again, our nation has undergone a series of dramatic changes over the last three decades and we are struggling to maintain our position as a global leader. There is considerable and often justifiable concern that our society might suffer if we allow our current educational system to continue without significant change in direction and goals.

Unfortunately, the usual tendency is to 'jump headfirst' without considering possible problems or the fact that one size fits all does not tend to work in a nation whose educational policy is as diverse and complex as our own. We cannot rely on a single method or policy in our schools. "Local proof of bilingual education's effectiveness is hard to find, even though the first kindergartens started here 30 years ago" (Tapia, 2000). There is little doubt that recognition of student skills developed in their native language is a critical task in educational theory and parents and teachers have come together to strongly oppose the measure in several states.

One of the strongest arguments against the English for the Children Measure is that schools were to be given one year to bridge the gap between skills learned in a native language and sufficient skill development in the English language. Potentially, children may be discouraged to retain their native language and be pushed all too quickly into joining mainstream society. Of course, there is a strong argument that learning English quickly can boost income and help applicants learn job skills that have practical applications in the workplace. However, what happens when children from indigenous tribes and cultures are forced to assimilate into the classroom because they are no longer encouraged to learn in their own language? What happens when children are taught to revere their heritage and language at home but are forbidden to use those same skills in the classroom?

For this reason, "Arizona TESOL (AZ-TESOL) joined hundreds of Native Americans in marching on the state capitol in Phoenix, Arizona, to register opposition to the English for the Children of Arizona initiative and its effect on the Native American languages in the state" (Dietz, 2001). Native American and American Indian cultures often practice their own style of learning and education at home. State and Federal policy makers have to realize that opponents of bilingual education may have a point but there is also sufficient data to suggest that attempting to create a system that requires school districts, teachers, students and parents to have only "ONE school year of intensive English language learning before immersing them in content classes with little or no support" (Dietz, 2001) is not beneficial to either the child or to our culture as a whole.

American Indians have reason to be concerned when it comes to fears that Federal Education policymakers may decide to ignore their culture and language. Treaty after treaty has allowed Native Americans to retain their own cultures and language but most of those treaties have been broken by the Federal or State governments more than once. Even if the law supports the Indian cause; the Federal government has often chosen to ignore that law. "Cherokee leader John Ross traveled to Washington to ask the Supreme Court to let his people keep their land. And he won. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation was not subject to the laws of the United States and did have a right to its own land. Yet the Cherokee had to move west anyway. Why? Because President Jackson refused to enforce the law" (Davis, 2005).

Additional examples of ignoring or discouraging Native American cultural needs and languages abound within Federal policy and continue to this day. For example, the Federal Government established an education policy in the 1950's that called for assimilation of tribes into the mainstream culture. Various tribes across the country were impacted by these new directives but the tribes in Southern Oregon were especially hard hit. "Their strength and wealth were, however, no match for determined efforts of the federal government to eradicate their culture and acquire their most valuable natural resources a million acres of land and ponderosa pine. The stage was set for the dispossession of the Klamaths in the early 1950's when the Tribes were subjected to the worst of many disastrous experiments in Federal-Indian policy "Termination". "Termination" was a federal policy adopted by the United States Congress in 1953 on its own motion, without the request of any tribe and over the objections of almost all tribes and Indian organizations of the day. The purpose of the policy, in its simplest terms, was to force the assimilation of Indian people into the mainstream American culture by the abolition of tribal governments, the eradication of reservations and all tribal holdings of lands and assets, and a whole array of other purposes" (Klamath Tribes, 2006).

Bilingual Education may have its detractors but Native American groups have generally benefited by the current laws because they are allowed to retain their native language while studying the English language. Linguistic research tends to support the idea that "young children will become bilingual when there is a real need to communicate in two languages and will just as quickly revert back to monolingualism when there is no longer a need" (Clark, 2002).

How can students be taught in their own language and still learn English? "The best teaching approach seems to be to focus on understanding the children and to accept their dialect as a valid and learning system, but to teach as an alternative the standard form of English (or whatever dominant is in your country). For example, Lisa Delpit (1995) describes Martha Demientieff, a Native Alaskan teacher of Athabaskan children in a small village. The teacher's goal is for her students to become fluent in both their dialect, which she calls "Heritage English," and the "Formal English" of others outside the village" (Woolfolk, 2005). Going back and forth between two dialects or speech forms is called "code switching" (Woolfolk, 2005) whereas bilingualism equates to "speaking two languages fluently" (Woolfolk, 2005).

In essence, the English for the Children Movement forces the teacher to abandon their own experiences and strategies in order to adopt a single path for the education of children in the classroom. Both bilingualism and code switching would be discouraged in favor of a single approach to learning English. Existing English for the Children amendments do not give the teacher the freedom to use their experience and teach the student in the classroom with a variety of approaches to learning. "All existing programs for limited-English speakers, even those that use only English, would be replaced with a short-term English immersion program" (Tapia, 2000).

Conclusion

In conclusion, each tribe or group has its own culture, traditions and language or dialect that has been impacted by Federal Policies and State Amendments that tend towards English for the Children movements in the United States. ESL teachers and Native American Leaders have understandably expressed concern that the law may erode some of the hard fought gains in national policies that have helped Native Americans to retain their cultural heritage while learning the English language. Proponents of the measure argue that bilingual education may not be the most effective way to teach children in the classroom. Both sides have merit but the real debate should be that "it's not the model of instruction that matters--it's the quality" (Hamilton quoting Merickel, 2006).

References:

Baca, L. and Miramontes, O. (1985). Bilingual Special Education Teacher Training for American Indians Journal of American Indian Education retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://jaie.asu.edu/v24/V24S2bil.html

Clark, B.A. (2002). First and Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood. Issues Early Childhood Education: Curriculum, Teacher Education and Dissemination of Information - Proceedings of the Lillian Katz Symposium retrieved July 6, 2007 from the Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/katzsym/clark-b.html

Davis, K. (2003). Don't Know Much About American History New York, NY. Harper Collins Publishers

Dietz, K. (2001). AZ-TESOL's Argument against the English for the Children of Arizona Ballot Initiative retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=195&DID=876

Echevarria, J.,Vogt, M. and Short, D.(2004). Making Content Comprehensible: For English Learners Second Edition Boston, MA Pearson, Allyn & Bacon

Hamilton, K. (2006). Bilingual or Immersion? Diverse Issues in Education retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WMX/is_5_23/ai_n16418668

Klamath Tribes (2006). The Long Struggle Home retrieved July 5, 2007 from http://www.klamathtribes.org/tribal-lands-restoration.htm

Ovando, C., Combs, M. and Collier, V. (2006). Bilingual and ESL Classrooms Fourth Edition Boston, MA.McGraw Hill

Porter, R. (1998). Twisted Tongues: The Failure of Bilingual Education George Washington University retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/

Tapia, S. (2000). English for the Children: Why Teach in Spanish? Arizona Daily Star retrieved July 22, 2007 from http://www.azstarnet.com/public/packages/bilingual00/

Van Hook, C.W. (2002). Preparing Teachers for the Diverse Classroom: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. Early Childhood and Parenting (ECAP) Collaborative - Proceedings of the Lillian Katz Symposium

Wikipedia (2007). Native Americans in the United States Wikipedia retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

Woolfolk, A. (2005). Educational Psychology Ninth Edition Boston MA. Allyn and Bacon retrieved July 6, 2007 from the Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/katzsym/vanhook.html