Is your daughter going to be multilingual? Are you speaking to her in Spanish only? Is she also learning Hungarian? These are the kinds of questions I get asked after giving birth to a beautiful daughter. The answer I give is the same: I hope my daughter becomes fluent in multiple languages. However, the reality is that my daughter is growing up in a state that has enacted restrictive language policies. This concretely means that she will be taught exclusively in English. English, historically and presently, is the dominant language of the U.S. and the principal language of schooling. Yes, it is hard to believe that in some states through out the U.S. (including California where I currently live), schools and educators impose their language ideologies—a set of beliefs or feelings about how language(s) should be learned and used—on children and youth’s educational and occupational trajectories. The most contradicting fact is that very early on, educators restrict students’ opportunities to become bilingual (or multilingual), and later on, the job market will end up rewarding individuals who are multilingual (read the new book by my colleagues Callahan and Gándara titled, “The Bilingual Advantage: Language, Literacy, and the U.S. Labor Market,” for more info on this topic). So why restrict students’ opportunities to learn and speak in multiple languages when they are young? Is there hope for all kids in the U.S. to become multilingual?
Following the enactment of the Bilingual Education Act (1968) and the Lau vs. Nichols Supreme Court decision (1974), there was strong momentum for bilingualism to be the method of choice for educating English Language Learners in public schools throughout the country (Gándara, 2012). However, immediately after these pieces of legislation were passed, English-only advocates started to pressure the federal government to provide evidence that demonstrated that bilingualism was actually a superior form of instruction. Some of the research that emerged at that time (see Gándara and Contreras, 2009, for more information on these studies) did not clearly articulate the benefits of being taught in a bilingual program. Consequently, skepticism of bilingual education grew throughout the 1990s. In 1998, Proposition 227 (or the English-for-the-Children initiative) passed in California. Years later, Massachussets and Arizona passed different versions of this initiative (Gándara, 2012). It is, perhaps, general belief that restrictive language policies started with Proposition 227, but that is not the case. Let us not forget that central to the history of colonization has been the use of restrictive language policies to guarantee that certain groups of individuals (possibily because of the way they look and speak) will not fully participate in the economic and political landscape of this nation (Darder & Uriarte, 2013).
This topic seems to be popular currently. I constantly hear on the radio and read on the newspapers plenty of “somewhat new” research that says: ‘Why Bilinguals are smarter’ and ‘How the brain benefits from being bilingual’. This is not new scholarship. Indeed, this topic has been studied for a long time and researchers (e.g., Gándara & Rumberger, 2008; Gándara & Hopkins, 2010; Hakuta, 1975, 1983) have been very clear about this: learning English and other languages is good for all kids. Unfortunately, policy-makers and some educators have used many different strategies to tell us another story. In fact, some of them have worked very hard to make it very difficult for students and their families to be fluent in multiple languages. In some states, students are even punished for speaking anything other than English while they attend school.
Now, if you think restrictive language policies are a thing of the past, think twice. In 2010, the Arizona Educational Equity Project [AEEP] (which I was part of) studied the impact of one of the most restrictive language policies that exists in the U.S.: The 4-hour Structured English Immersion program (also known as the 4-hour English Language Development [ELD] block model) implemented in Arizona since 2009. Basically, the law stated that, those identified as English Language Learner (ELL) students, would spend (at least) 4-hours a day learning English and would become English proficient in one year. Yes, you read it well, in just one year. The studies produced by the AEEP were prepared to provide evidence and to inform the Horne vs. Flores case[1]. I cannot review in detail all the aspects of the Arizona law here, (see Rios-Aguilar & Gándara, 2012, for details on all papers) but I can share here some of the most important findings.
First, research showed that the processes of identifying ELLs and assessing their English proficiency are complex and should not be overlooked by scholars, educators, school administrators, and policy-makers. These processes have important implications for school funding and accountability measures. Second, we learned that ELLs do require special instruction in schools in order to acquire the English needed to succeed in school and in life. None of my colleagues have advocated for having ELLs speak only their native language. We know that learning English is essential to their success in school and in life. Now, the question is how to best educate ELLs. The answer is not trivial. Some scholars advocate for bilingualism and others for full English immersion. What we do know is that the majority of research on this topic suggests that, whenever possible, the use of native language for instruction of ELLs is a superior instructional strategy (Snow et al. 1998; Martinez-Wenzl et al. 2011). Third, we learned that separating ELLs from their English-native peers is not an effective strategy to help them become proficient in English. In fact, research shows that segregating ELLs can have profound negative consequences for their academic trajectories. Given the evidence shown in all these studies, it became clear that Arizona’s ELL students were being segregated and not receiving an appropriate education, thus hurting their learning and their educational trajectories. Sadly, the politics of intimidation precluded the use of all this evidence in court. Arizona was required to modify only certain aspects of their language policy (specifically the process of identifying ELLs), and unfortunately, the rest of the policy remains intact.
Currently, ELLs in many states are not performing academically as well as their native English peers. Nevertheless, public schools are opening their doors to more and more children who speak a language other than English, making language diversity in this country and its schools a fact of life. We need, then, language policies that expand the language resources of all students. The research to design effective policies exists and is available for educators and decision-makers (see all the research by Patricia Gándara and our new publication on the transition of English learners to postsecondary education). Future language policies in this country should not focus on maintaining the status quo and continue privileging the role and position of English. Instead language policies should acknowledge language diversity and develop it as a valuable national resource. We must stop treating ELLs (and their families and communities) as deficient simply because they speak another language that is not English. In the meantime, I will continue speaking multiple languages to my daughter and continue producing research that helps policy-makers make better decisions regarding the education of ELLs in the U.S.
References:
Callahan, R. M., & Gándara, P.C. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the U.S. labor market. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Darder, A., & Uriarte, M. (2013). The politics of restrictive language policies: A postcolonial analysis of language and schooling. Postcolonial Directions in Education, 2(1) 6-67.
Gándara, P., & R. Rumberger (2008). Defining an Adequate Education for English Learners, Education, 3, 130-148.
Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. Teachers College Press. New York, NY.
Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2012). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the “Mexican room”? Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1-27.
[1] In 1992, Miriam Flores, a 4th grader at the time, sued the Nogales Arizona School District for failing to provide an adequate education to her and other limited English proficient students (Gándara & Orfield, 2012)
Author Biography
Cecilia Rios-Aguilar is an Associate Professor of Education and Director of the Higher Education Research Institute in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Rios-Aguilar’s research is multidisciplinary and uses a variety of conceptual frameworks—funds of knowledge and the forms of capital—and of statistical approaches—regression analysis, multilevel models, structural equation modeling, GIS, and social network analysis—to study the educational and occupational trajectories of under-represented minorities, including English learners, immigrant, and low-income students. Dr. Rios-Aguilar has published her work in several journals, including Teachers College Record, Language Policy, Community College Review, and the Journal of Latinos and Education.