Cover Story: A Simple Matter Of Politics

There are few issues that engender greater hostility and disagreement than bilingual education. I have to admit that I have been as much of an instigator of hostility as a recipient of it in this arena. It is also understandable that professional educators (which I am not) bristle at the notion of political hacks (which I am) determining education policy. But public education, by its very nature, is inextricably intertwined with politics.

Bilingual education is an especially sensitive area that combines ethnic politics, culture, language and assimilation in an explosive brew of emotions. The two political camps in the bilingual wars can be easily categorized. On one hand we have the assimilationists, who believe that teaching English and making students culturally American is the priority. To the assimilationists, the maintenance of native languages and cultures is either objectionable or a non-issue. On the other side are the multiculturalists who give equal priority to teaching English and preserving native languages and cultures.

It is this political schism and not educational research or scientific analysis, which has driven public policy toward English language learners in the United States. Public attitudes toward immigrants were not much of an issue in the early days of bilingual education as most of these programs were run privately by immigrant communities, a tradition that continues to this day.
As public education became more common, this new institution catered to the linguistics needs of immigrant populations and provided language maintenance programs in native languages, mostly German. Americans have tended to be most tolerant of immigrants during periods of low immigration and the tide soon shifted when America saw an unprecedented level of immigration at the turn of this century. Americanization became the slogan for schools and community organizations. Immigrant students were immersed in English to sink or swim.

Hispanic students were subjected to this same enthusiasm for assimilation and the failures and abuses of this old approach or more accurately "non-approach", are well documented. By the 1960s Mexican-American students in parts of the Southwest had dropout rates as high as 80 percent, and in many instances limited English proficiency was the cause. This led to a birth of the modern bilingual education movement, a program that advocates demanded, and still do, as a matter of civil rights.
It was through the skillful use of politics that advocates of bilingual education were able to get Congress to approve the Bilingual Education Act in 1968, force a dozen states to mandate bilingual education as the preferred method of instruction for limited English students, and recruit the federal government's Office for Civil Rights to issue "remedies" which mandated bilingual education. And it was politically driven litigation which led to the Supreme Court victory in Lau v. Nichols in 1974, the case which made clear the obligation of schools to provide specialized assistance to language-minority students.

It is somewhat disingenuous then to attack Ron Unz and his Proposition 227, the 1998 initiative that replaced bilingual education in California with structured English immersion, as an unwarranted political intrusion into what should be a strictly educational decision. The public should have a say in public education. Parents don't want to run schools or micromanage teachers, but they do want to be able to set priorities, and in California, voters have prioritized English acquisition as quickly as possible, albeit in an arguably overly prescriptive manner.

To further complicate matters, the issue of educating language-minority students divides people along educational lines as well. Bilingual education theory is based on the premise that students learn English best by first becoming fully literate in their native language. It is this theory that is drilled into future teachers, taught at colleges and universities, and has gained wide acceptance in the educational establishment. But, for practical purposes, it is impossible to provide bilingual education to every student and large numbers of immigrant children are instead taught using ESL or ESOL techniques.

This places ESL in the unfortunate position of playing Cinderella: ESL teachers seldom receive the salary premiums enjoyed by bilingual educators and must be satisfied with being second best in theoretical circles as well. But as any ESL teacher knows, children do not have to be literate in their native language in order to be taught literacy or academics in English. Many ESL teachers resent the implication that they are somehow doing a lesser job because they are not bilingual.

Parents and the general public have also been made to feel inferior in many ways when questions arise with bilingual education. Like any educational program, bilingual education is not perfect. I have spoken with dozens of parents and educators across the country, all with nearly identical complaints about improper and involuntary placement of students into bilingual programs, and over prescriptive bilingual education state mandates.

Proponents have rightly argued that all educational programs have problems and that there are many good bilingual programs. Indeed, it is not wise to throw the baby out with the bath water, but that doesn't mean that you should not throw out the bath water. Proposals intended to clean this bath water have unfortunately been met with howls of protest. When parents in New Jersey testified before the state senate for the right to remove their children from bilingual programs in 1995 the New Jersey Bilingual Council opposed them. For ten years California legislators unsuccessfully attempted to soften highly prescriptive bilingual education mandates. In Massachusetts, minor adjustments to the bilingual education regulations by the State Board of Education were greeted with orchestrated protests and disruptive behavior at board meetings.

In 1995 I organized a conference on Capitol Hill to discuss bilingual education and invited every supporter of I could think of. All of them refused to participate with the exception of a representative from TESOL. I was told flat out by a high profile advocate, who shall remain nameless, "Why should I help you?"

Oh how the times have changed! Say what you will about Proposition 227, but it was that initiative which has finally brought both sides in this debate to civil discussion of the issues. The National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) now recognizes that there are other effective and worthwhile methods for teaching children English. Professor Stephen Krashen, arguably the most prominent figure in the bilingual education movement, now advocates teaching children English as quickly as possible, through bilingual education, of course.

Professor Kenji Hakuta, another leading proponent of bilingual education, has even found some nice things to say about Proposition 227. This initiative has focused attention on the needs of language-minority children. Already, school districts across the country have re-evaluated their language-assistance programs and addressed many of the concerns of critics like myself. In Denver, the bilingual program was changed to allow parents the right to withdraw their children. Denver, Chicago, and Houston have all implemented new policy priorities emphasizing the rapid acquisition of English in their bilingual programs.

In Arizona, where a Proposition 227-like initiative is being actively pursued, hot tempers have prevented discussion of the issues surrounding the education of English-learners. A press conference organized last year by the Arizona English for the Children organization threatened to turn violent when supporters of bilingual education appeared in force. Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Lisa Graham Keegan, attempted to host several roundtable discussions of bilingual education with all sides represented only to have the events break down into less than constructive arguments.

Recently, the Center for Equal Opportunity sponsored a conference on this issue in Phoenix, bringing together opponents and proponents of bilingual education as well as state and federal policy makers to discuss their differences in a constructive manner. The strict format of the conference allowed for greater understanding of the concerns of all involved. Despite the epic proportions of this struggle between advocates and critics of bilingual education, the differences between both sides are actually quite small. It was this realization which led the National Research Council (NRC) in a 1997 report to call for researchers to stop focusing on which program works best, and instead focus on identifying effective strategies with are successful across different mediums. Professor Kenji Hakuta, who chaired the NRC report committee, has also called for a greater emphasis on ensuring that language-minority children are receiving effective and high-quality instruction whether it is in a bilingual, ESL or structured immersion program.

It is both heartening and sad that the major difference between a long time critic of bilingual education such as Rosalie Pedalino Porter and a supporter such as Stephen Krashen is on the amount of English versus the amount of native language used in a student's school day.
Indeed the debate is not between Spanish-only versus English-only instruction, but simply a matter of degrees. With a renewed focus on parental choice and accountability in all programs for English-learners, both sides may actually be moving in the same direction.

Jorge Amselle is the Executive Director of the READ Institute and Vice President for Education at the Center for Equal Opportunity in Washington, DC.