Educational Equity?
Although we'd like to believe that life in these United States is based on principles of equality, we have come to know differently. Throughout America's history, various groups have had to fight for rights that were offered as guarantees in the Bill of Rights. Too often that struggle involved a fair and equal opportunity to be educated. If education is considered a fundamental right and is a tool for socializing the citizens of the country, then on what grounds should any citizen be denied access to it?
Educational equity is aimed at providing "every" student with equality of educational opportunity regardless of race, national origin, gender or economic status. Studies show that these factors (over which a child has no control) are often used to determine how that child is educated. The goal of educational equity is to reduce, eventually eliminate the use of these factors as determinants. It appears that the debate over bilingual education does not recognize this goal.
The Bilingual Education Act (TitleVII) defines bilingual education as " a program of instruction, designed for children of limited English speaking ability in elementary and secondary schools, in which there is instruction given in, and the study of, English, and to the extent necessary to allow a child to progress effectively through the educational system the native language is used, and such instruction is given with appreciation for the cultural heritage of such children, in the case of elementary school children such instruction shall , to the extent necessary be in all courses or subjects of study ..."1
Bilingual instruction, as we know it in America, involves using the native language of non- English speaking students as a bridge until the child is able to move into a program in which English is the exclusive language of instruction. The student is exposed to the English language while receiving instruction in his/her native language.
The two methods of instruction employed in this country are native language method and English as a second language (ESL). The first "native language method" involves teaching of reading and writing by bilingual teachers, in the student's native language. The transfer to English is made after the child has mastered native language skills. The second, ESL involves the assignment of students to regular English classes. Intensive English instruction is offered by a resource teacher at some point during the day, away from the child's regular classroom.
The debate over the effectiveness of bilingual education appears to give strength to the argument offered by its opponents. The current debate is reminiscent of past debates over equal rights for women and ethnic minorities. It also echoes debate over multicultural education and early immigration. Perhaps it is time to evaluate such programs from the view of those who are most affected by them rather than from the views of politicians and proficiency test scores.
Educating America
One argument against bilingual programs takes shape form a misconception that they are designed to maintain a child's native language without any real intent of making the transition to English. Quite the opposite is true. Historically, bilingual programs began as early as 1840 in the public schools as an attempt at ensuring that German children also learned English. At that time, German immigrants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York protested that their children were not learning in the English-only schools. Protest from the communities and school officials centered around the idea that children would be germanized if taught in their native language. Parents on the other hand thought their children could better learn in schools where they could understand what was being taught. After some political pressure from ethnic communities, school districts decided to include some German instruction. Bilingual programs however were not welcome by the English-speaking citizens who saw them as an instrument for luring German children into public schools.
"Between 1840 and 1880, bilingual programs (for various ethnic groups) were offered in the public schools. In addition to German bilingual education, there were French-English schools in Louisiana and Spanish-English schools in New Mexico. After 1880, only one group successfully maintained bilingual programs in the public schools- the Germans, who did so until 1917." 2
Not very much has changed in the struggle for the existence of bilingual education programs, or in the nature of protest against them. As a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, schools across the country had to reckon with the idea that immigrant children were being denied a quality education because they were unable to grasp concepts offered through English-only instruction. I am inclined to agree with a Supreme Court ruling that concluded that providing an equal facility, same teachers and same instruction does not constitute an equal education when students are unable to understand the language in which they are being taught.
In Latino communities, both Chicanos and Mexicans petitioned public school districts in the Southwest to better educate their children. The age-old debate over bilingual education had again crept to the forefront. Again the same arguments: children were underachieving in English-only classes due to poor language skills; School districts were unwilling to provide non-English based instruction for fear that these students would cling to their native languages and fail to learn the English language, would threaten the cohesion of the community and delay assimilation into the larger American society.
In the late 1960's California, Texas and New York had high concentrations of children who would benefit from bilingual instruction. By 1968, the country was persuaded to recognize "special education" needs for children whose native language was one other than English. This legislation culminated in the passage of the Bilingual Education Act. Although provisions were made for bilingual education through Title VII of the Education Act, school systems were under no obligation to comply. It was not until a class action lawsuit against San Francisco's unified School District was brought to the federal district court, wherein Chinese students felt that they were not receiving a meaningful education.
These students (the plaintiffs) argued that no special programs were available to meet their linguistic or cultural needs. The district court dismissed their protest as simply that and the case was taken up in the U.S. Supreme Court in which the decision of the lower court was overturned. The 1974 decision in Lau v. Nichols was translated into federal policy, later known as the Lau Remedies and was used as criteria for judging bilingual programs in other districts- although the court recommended no specific method of instruction for dealing with the position of the Chinese students.
The decision rendered by the Court was based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. "It seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receives fewer benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents' school system which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program- all earmarks of discrimination banned by the regulation."3 This decision did not require use of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment although it was cited in the argument set forth by the Chinese students.
A 1978 survey overseen by the office of Bilingual and Minority Language Affairs found that 1.7 million students qualified as Limited English-Proficient across the country. Of that number only 2.3% were receiving instruction in traditional bilingual programs. Another 11% were in English classrooms with some ESL instruction time. Yet a whopping 58% were in English medium instruction with remedial English. What became of the other 27% of the 1.7 million is a mystery to me. My guess is they are struggling through English-only classes and being left behind their academic peers. Or maybe they are among the few whom are able to quickly acquire a second language
Why has the country returned to the same arguments that were offered for more than a century against bilingual education programs? We might look to the idea that bilingual programs are considered a financial burden on districts with high concentrations of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students. Use for example San Francisco whose school population is eighty percent Spanish-speaking, Filipino and Chinese for whom a bilingual-bicultural program was instituted. For an additional twenty percent who were classified as limited- English proficient, ESL was offered. This school district would certainly qualify for special financial assistance. That assistance would come through a funding source aptly called "Bilingual Desegregation Support Program." The program "provides financial assistance to local school systems to help meet educational needs of children from non-English-speaking homes and who lack educational opportunities because of language and culture." 4
We might also look at the drastic increase in the number of limited English-speaking students who now enroll in the nation's public schools. Naturally, the increase in the number of adult immigrants with limited English is reflected in the school populations. If school districts have found that it is too costly to educate the children of non-English- speaking immigrants, perhaps that is a necessary consideration to be made at the time of creating immigration policy. It is certainly more democratic to keep non-English speakers out of the country, rather than accept them and refuse to educate them.
It's not that there is a lack of funds, the numbers simply have grown too great and the cost for funding these programs has kept economic pace. There are many who feel that those funds would be better spent on other language programs. Since the results of bilingual programs are often reported as ineffective-meaning that children are remaining in bilingual programs too long with too little positive growth, it is suggested that other methods of instruction replace the current programs. Will we as a nation seek alternative ways to educate non-English-speaking immigrants or will we simply withdraw the support that is currently there and opt for the "Sink or Swim" method of English only immersion?